±¬ÁÏÍø

Citing the Teferra judgment, the Tribunal examined whether the application contained an administrative decision falling under the purview of Article 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.4 (a). The Tribunal found that there was nothing on the record to show that the administration gave specific instructions to the hospitals in Kenya not to provide medical services to the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not able to receive medical services on an occasion due to his lack of diligence in obtaining a MIP card for himself and his family members, despite the numerous attempts...

The P-11 clearly states that any misrepresentation or material omission made on a P-11 or other document requested by the Organization renders a staff member of the United Nations liable to termination or dismissal. The Applicant deliberately submitted a P-11 misrepresenting his educational background and submitted a certificate which he knew to be forged. Therefore, ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was well-founded.

The jurisdiction ratione materiae conferred on the Tribunal is set out in Article 2.1(a) of the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. Given the nature of the decisions taken by the administration, there cannot be a precise and limited definition of such a decision. What is or is not an administrative decision must be decided on a case by case basis and taking into account the specific context of the surrounding circumstances when such decisions were taken. This is an administrative decision related to the applicant¡¯s contract of employment and is therefore receivable.

Admissibility: The parameters of what is admissible before this court is provided for in Article 18 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure. In relevant part, the Article states that the Tribunal shall determine the admissibility of any evidence; and that it may exclude evidence which it considers irrelevant, frivolous or lacking in probative value. Workplan/EPAS: It is the responsibility of the first reporting officer to set out the work plan with the Applicant; to conduct the mid-point review and the final appraisal; and to provide supervision on the overall work of the Applicant during the course...

Conclusion on the duration of the suspension: ¡°the length of the suspension is to be decided by the Tribunal depending on the nature and circumstances of the case and this discretion of the Tribunal cannot and should not be subject to any form of control by the administration¡±. The decision ordered on 1 September 2009 that the suspension of the contested decision to terminate the employment of the Applicant on 3 September 2009 would remain in force until the final determination of the appeal should be read as it appears and that the Applicant should be paid half his salary from the date of the...

Respondent¡¯s Counsel filed a motion seeking an extension of the time limit to file the Respondent¡¯s reply on several grounds, including exigencies of service. The Respondent was enjoined to submit a proper application requesting that he should be allowed to take part in the proceedings. The determination of whether he was going to be authorized to file a reply was going to be taken in the light of the Respondent¡¯s motion.

The application was not receivable under article 13 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure because at the time the application was filed, there was no management evaluation pending. It was only on 21 October 2009 that the Tribunal received a copy of the request for management evaluation of the decision of 5 October 2009. The application was not receivable under article 14 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure because the administrative decision dated 5 October 2009 to fill the post related to an appointment and could not be the subject of interim relief in view of the exception contained in article 14...

The Applicant addressed a letter dated 29 May 2009 to the Secretary-General requesting him to ¡°reverse that decision¡± but no mention was made of the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract because it was only on 30 June 2009 that the Applicant was informed that his contract would not be renewed beyond 30 September 2009. The Applicant sought to establish that he had in fact requested a review of the decision and referred to an email he had sent to the Registrar of the ICTR in which he informed him that he was contesting the decision not to renew his contract. That email was dated 27 April 2009...

The Applicant filed a motion for interim measures requesting that the Tribunal order the Ethics Office to deliver recommendations on his case with respect to whistle-blowing retaliation; and to find a prima-facie violation of the Applicant¡¯s due-process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP. The Tribunal rejected the motion to order the Ethics Office to deliver its recommendations and decided that the alleged violation of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract would be addressed during the review of the...

The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was prima facie unlawful because it appeared to be in breach of the Organization¡¯s Rules and in breach of international legal norms relating to due process. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract would be terminated on 3 September 2009. Notwithstanding that it had allegedly been agreed that the contract would be extended after 3 September 2009, the matter was still urgent because this was not the first time that this particular strategy had been used by the Respondent towards the Applicant. Having...

The contested decision was prima facie unlawful for the following reasons: i) there was a promise of renewal by the officer-in-charge that created a legitimate expectation of renewal, which placed on the Respondent a duty to consider whether it was not in the interest of the organisation that the expectation of the renewal of the employment should be fulfilled; and ii) the decision not to renew the contract of the Applicant appeared to be in breach of the Organization¡¯s Rules and amounted to an abuse of discretion. On the question of urgency, the Applicant had been informed that his contract...

The members of the IJC were informed that the Applicant¡¯s cases had been transferred to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT from the Joint Appeals Board and that they may have had an interest to join in as parties in the case, pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure. The information communicated to the members of the IJC could not be construed as amounting to any impropriety, less still a conflict of interest, within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure. The application was rejected because it was merely a repetition of the application dismissed by Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/005.

The Judges of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT were not appointed by the IJC whose mandate was to identify suitable candidates for recommendation to the General Assembly. The Judges were elected by the General Assembly on 2 March 2009 and that process involved the participation of nearly 190 Member States of the United Nations. This guaranteed their independence. The Applicant¡¯s averment of lack of impartiality was based on the fact that the Judges of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT were selected by the IJC. The Applicant made general accusations of potential bias but did not give any precision on how this bias on the...