The Tribunal found that there could not be an absolute and general rule that the failure to give reasons amounts to an unlawful exercise of the discretion not to renew. Nor should there be a rule that reasons should never be given. Having found that the decision was not prima facie illegal, the requirements provided for in Article 13 of the Rules of Procedure to grant suspension of action were not met.Outcome: the application was dismissed.
i. Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found that prima facie unlawfulness had been established because the Applicant identified anomalies in the processes used by UNON. ii. Particular urgency: The Tribunal noted that the selection decision had been communicated to the selected candidate by UNON before the Applicant filed her application. As the contested decision had been implemented, the element of particular urgency had not been met. iii. Irreparable damage: The Tribunal found that the Applicant established irreparable damage in that there would be harm to her reputation and career...
The impugned decision is grossly, patently, incurably and incontrovertibly unlawful. An order suspending the administrative decision pending management evaluation is bound to work injustice in the circumstances.The Application that gave rise to the proceedings and deliberations in this case clearly was brought under a wrong heading when it was filed as a suspension of action application. The Tribunal, in the present circumstances, must in the interest of justice move this matter to the cause list of applications on the merit and accordingly dispose of it fully and on the merits.Article 36 of...
The UNDT found that the policy or practice had no legal basis in any of the norms of the Organization and was thus unlawful. The Tribunal ordered the rescission of the policy in relation to the Applicant and moral damages of three months’ net base salary. Enforcement of an unlawful policy or practice: Reports of the Fifth Committee do not carry the same legal force as General Assembly Resolutions. The Secretary-General is also not mandated, in the absence of an express statutory provision, to incorporate into a staff member’s terms of employment any policy or recommendation from a Committee...
Prima facie case: When the Respondent fails to respond to a submission of the Applicant and to the relevant evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal is left with the inference that the submission is correct.Urgency: The matter was imminent as the Applicant’s contract ended in eight days from the date of the Judgment. The urgency was due to the Respondent not properly ensuring that a management evaluation would be ready before the scheduled day of separation.Irreparable harm: The harm that the Applicant contended he and his family will suffer from the non-renewal of his contract, and...
The Tribunal concluded that there was cogent evidence that extraneous factors were taken into account in the decision not to extend the Applicant’s contract. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had sufficiently discharged his burden of proof. He showed that the actions of the Respondent’s agents were unfair, improperly motivated, and wholly arbitrary.
Terms of settlement have been agreed between the parties. They have confirmed that the said terms have been fully executed and that there are no outstanding claims arising from the present case.
Jurisdiction: The Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over this SOA in light of the fact that the Applicant had received a response to his request for management evaluation prior to the filing of his application. Thus, the contested administrative decision was no longer the subject of an ongoing management evaluation as required under art. 2 of the Statute.
The application was filed approximately eleven months after the period stipulated in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal and was therefore deemed to be time-barred. Additionally, the Applicant failed to make any submissions on the issue of receivability thus the Tribunal concluded that this was not an exceptional case to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The UNDT concluded that the application was time-barred and therefore not receivable.
On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal noted that, in the letter to the; Applicant dated 19 November 2012, the Chief Human Resources and Planning Section (HRPS), informed her that her application of for the FS-5 post was not successful. The Applicant was also informed that a suitable positin had been identified for her, namely, a Claims Assistant at the G-6 level. The Tribunal found that the identification of a G-6 level post for the Applicant who at the time encumbered an FS-4 level post could not be considered a suitable position for the Applicant as required by sections 10.2...
