±¬ÁÏÍø

He alleges that the decision was discriminatory, since based on his Kurdish ethnicity, and not based on reasons of force majeure, namely the earthquake that occurred in Van in October/November 2011 and which led to the temporary closure of the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR office in Van. A hearing took place 0n 5 February 2013, during which the Applicant requested the Tribunal to call a witness to provide testimony concerning his claim that the decision was discriminatory. His request to have his witness heard was, however, not granted and Judge Cousin, in Judgment Kacan ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/025 of 19 February 2013, rejected...

e was working as Project Manager on an extra-budgetary project, funded exclusively by one member state, and his FTA was limited to his post and department. The decision was based on the discontinuation of the project funding by the Donor. The initial decision had been notified to the Applicant on 13 November 2012, and he requested timely management evaluation thereof. However, upon misleading advice from the MEU, he subsequently submitted a new request for management evaluation against the second, confirmative decision not to extend his appointment beyond 31 May 2013. Thereafter, upon receipt...

The Tribunal found that the Administration violated the rights of the Applicant by not including the PAD cycle year 2009 when making the termination decision in July 2010. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the contested decision and compensation for material damage equivalent to the loss of salary until her early retirement date on 1 May 2011. When terminating a contract for unsatisfactory service, the PAD reports to be taken into consideration must be the ones immediately preceding the non-renewal decision, so the PAD cycle years 2007, 2008, and 2009 for a termination decision made in...

The Tribunal established that it was clear from the facts and documents provided that the Applicant never received written notice of non-renewal of his contract but was informed orally. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant's rights were not respected and strongly condemned the attitude of the Administration which, despite the decisions of the Appeals Tribunal in which it had been decided that written notification was essential in order to allow a staff member to assert his rights, had simply decided to ignore these principles. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it was unable to...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s claim regarding separation from service was not receivable ratione materiae. With respect to his non-selection, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had satisfactorily established that there was a flaw in the recruitment process and that this flaw had breached his right to due process. He was awarded 3 months compensation. Bias: The Tribunal concluded that by not shortlisting the Applicant initially due to an uninvestigated incident from 2009 it was obvious that the decision makers had already formed an adverse view of the Applicant. Consequently, doubt...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant¡¯s explanations for how the missing card came to be in his possession were so far-fetched as to be unbelievable. He was shown to have had the opportunity to take illegal possession of the card and stood to make a pecuniary benefit from so taking it. There were several material inconsistencies in the Applicant¡¯s case and he was found not to be credible, contradicting himself in the course of the investigation and in his testimony before the Tribunal. The facts upon which the sanction was based were established and amounted to serious misconduct on the part of...

The decision not to renew his contract was not an administrative decision ¡°stem[ming] from [this] performance appraisal¡±. The Tribunal holds that the Applicant had no right of appeal against the 2011-2012 e-PAS. That claim is therefore not receivable. Finally, in his claim relating to this performance evaluation the Applicant also challenges the MEU decision that the issue of the Second Reporting Officer¡¯s comments in the Applicant¡¯s e-PAS was time barred. This part of his claim is not receivable as MEU decisions are not reviewable by this Tribunal.It is not within the powers of the Tribunal...

The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was unlawful in light of extraneous factors and the Respondent¡¯s failure to adhere to the rules on performance.

Performance appraisal: The Tribunal noted that even before the Applicant¡¯s individual performance work plan had been approved by his first reporting officer; his second reporting officer was making efforts to terminate his contract. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable and inappropriate for the Applicant¡¯s performance to be measured against outputs and performance indicators that had neither been defined nor approved by his...

The Applicant contended, inter alia, that WFP breached her due process rights during the disciplinary proceedings and she did not breach any of the applicable rules. The evidence before the Tribunal sustained the Applicant¡¯s contention that WFP¡¯s investigators did not respect her due process rights. The ground of appeal related to the irregularity of the disciplinary proceeding is accepted and the Tribunal does not need to analyse the rest of the Applicant¡¯s contentions. The rescission of the contested decision is, per se, a fair and sufficient remedy for the moral prejudice caused to the...

Legitimate expectation ¨C The Country Office¡¯s Core Management Group meeting of 29 February 2012 decided that all international staff, including the Applicant, would be extended for one year and the Applicant knew of the decision. This Tribunal finds that the decision taken at a regular and proper Country Office Core Management Group meeting to extend the contract of a staff member, which decision is embodied in open recorded minutes and accessible to staff members, carries far greater weight than any ¡®express promise¡¯ that can be made to the said staff member about extending his contract. The...