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 UNDT 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 UNDT 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’s counsel registered his concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given that the Registrar of this Tribunal was involved, at least in part, in the decision making processes which form the substance of the present application. Counsel for the Applicant stated that he simply wished for his concerns to be recorded, but that he was not seeking a ruling on the issue. The Applicant’s concerns with regard to the potential conflict of interest on the part of the Registrar were noted. Notwithstanding the Applicant’s position that he was not seeking a ruling on the issue, the...
Motion for extension of time was refused. Abuse of process of the Tribunal.
The Applicant filed the application for a stay of proceedings in her case pending the outcome of an on-going recruitment process to the vacant post. The motion for stay of proceedings was refused because it lacked merit. The application was struck out because the Applicant was inviting the Tribunal to act as “Big Brother” and constitute some kind of sword of Damocles over the head of the Respondent by keeping her case alive while the recruitment process was on and to possibly invoke it if she was not happy with the outcome of the exercise. This was an abuse of the Tribunal’s process. In...
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 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 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 UNDP. 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 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, UNHCR decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was well-founded.
