Â鶹´«Ã½

Prima facie unlawfulness Having reviewed the Applicant’s performance evaluations, the Tribunal had doubts as to whether the Applicant’s direct supervisors were indeed consulted before the lieutenants finalized and gave to the Applicant the performance evaluation forms on 9 June 2011. Absent an explanation from the Respondent on this particular point, these doubts had a direct impact on the lawfulness of the contested decision. If indeed the Administration did not follow its accepted and reasonable practice, the decision not to extend the Applicant’s appointment due to his poor performance...

The Applicant claimed that: the decision was discriminatory and the decision-maker sought retribution for, inter alia, the Applicant’s failure to choose the decision-maker’s favoured candidate in a selection process; the matter was urgent due to the impending expiration of the Applicant’s contract; and the decision would cause irreparable harm because the Applicant would lose his job and current livelihood. The Respondent contended that the application should be rejected outright because the Applicant did not pursue his claim with due diligence. The Respondent further argued that the Applicant...

The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the overall test for a suspension of action with respect to that decision. With respect to the decision to require her to take a break in service prior to her placement on a temporary appointment, the Tribunal found that the three requirements of art. 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute were satisfied. The Tribunal found that, for staff on fixed-term appointments who are being reappointed under temporary appointments following the expiration of their fixed-term appointments, there is no requirement, in law, to take a break in service...

The impugned decision was suspended until when the matter would be heard and determined on the merits.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case as to warrant a suspension of action.

UNDT noted that it had not received any application or correspondence from the Applicant after the outcome of his management evaluation request was received. UNDT closed the case for lack of prosecution.

When reviewing the conditions set out in Article 13 of the RoP, the Tribunal considered whether, in the light of the allegation of non-performance, the proper procedure relating to performance and e-PAS had been followed. It found that the decision was prima facie unlawful because the Respondent did not thoroughly follow its own rules and/or practices (a) by deciding not to renew the Applicant’s appointment without allowing the rebuttal process to be completed, and (b) by its failure to ensure a timely implementation of the 2010-2011 e- PAS.

UNDT held that, in light of Order No. 62 (NY/2010) and the subsequent lack of prosecution of the proceedings, there was no matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. UNDT closed the case without a determination of its merits.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case that the decision was arguably unlawful or that he would suffer irreparable damage from its implementation.

UNDT noted that the contested decision of 22 December 2010 was superseded by that of 31 March 2011 to allow the Applicant to exercise his right of rebuttal. UNDT held that the Applicant was moot and decided to close the case.