51ÁÔÆæ

Since the Applicant remains on special leave with full pay pending management evaluation at the time of the judgment, the termination decision remains suspended and has not yielded effects on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. The application is therefore not receivable. The action or inaction of the Administration to find an alternative post for the Applicant after he was first placed on special leave with full pay is not receivable because the Applicant did not include this ground in his request for management evaluation.

The Tribunal found that the application insofar as it related to a 26 September 2019 email was not receivable ratione materiae because that decision was not final. It did not produce a direct legal impact on the Applicant¡¯s legal status or have a legal effect on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The applicable legal decision was a Circular dated 18 October 2019. That Circular confirmed to the Applicant that he had not been selected for any of the posts he had applied for in 2019. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable in relation to three decisions contested by the...

The Administration¡¯s decision to redeploy the Applicant to Nairobi was subject to the condition that he be medically cleared. This condition has not been met to date, and consequently, the decision has not been implemented. Therefore, none of the challenged administrative decisions have yielded any direct legal consequences in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment, which remain unchanged. The applications are therefore non-receivable ratione materiae. The Applicant appealed this administrative decision before the Tribunal before MEU¡¯s deadline to respond to his request for management evaluation...

The email identified by the Applicant as the contested administrative decision does not constitute a fresh decision but a mere restatement of a previous email. It therefore cannot be considered to produce consequences on the legal order and is therefore not a challengeable administrative decision. The Applicant failed to contest the assignment of her current functions when notified to her. Therefore, the Applicant would be barred from contesting at this point that such assignment was in non-compliance with her contractual rights or conditions of employment.

The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself...

The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself...

The Tribunal found that whereas UNSOS had called upon the Applicant 51ÁÔÆæ the court order under the sanction of deductions, in fact, there were no deductions decided or effected. UNSOS¡¯s actions were only prefatory. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the application was not receivable for want of a reviewable administrative decision. The application was dismissed.

There was a final decision because the performance rating of ¡°partially satisfactory¡± became binding on the Applicant once the Rebuttal Panel issued its recommendation of 25 May 2018. The application, however, was not receivable because the Applicant failed to prove that there were direct legal consequences stemming from the Rebuttal Panel¡¯s decision.

The challenged decision was not the termination but a mere notice that the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment may be terminated if he failed to secure a new position and rejected the agreed separation proposed. Accordingly, the contested administrative decision did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision in the sense of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Applicant failed to indicate a specific date and content of the challenged administrative decision, as she only recalled an email from the Deputy Director, ID/OIOS, which would purportedly confirm an evaluation of insufficiency of the Applicant¡¯s investigatory experience to be recruited for the advertised post. The Tribunal, having considered the above-quoted content of the email, finds it insufficient to substantiate an administrative decision of definitive exclusion of the Applicant from the selection process. It remains, however, that the Applicant was not called for an interview and...