����AV

The decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment: The Applicant failed to comply with the two-month deadline stipulated in former staff rule 111.2(a) as he was formally notified of the non-renewal of his appointment on 4 February 2004 but did not request administrative review of the decision until 27 June 2008. Further, he failed to establish any “exceptional circumstances” that prevented him from filing his application in a timely manner. The decision not to reimburse the Applicant for the travel costs he incurred as a result of his participation in the OIOS investigation: In light of the fact that the Applicant was not notified in writing of the Respondent’s decision on this issue, the Tribunal applied the reasoning in Schook and found that former staff rule 111.2(a) did not apply and that this claim was receivable. The Tribunal also considered that the consistent disregard of the Applicant’s requests for reimbursement could only be characterized as negligence, which also created exceptional circumstances that made the claim receivable. On the substantive merits of this claim, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant obtained the authorization required by former staff rule 107.6 to purchase his return ticket to Arusha in that he accepted the instruction from ICTR, as communicated verbally through the OIOS investigator, in good faith. The decision not to pay the Applicant a lump sum for his repatriation travel: In light of the fact that the Applicant was separated from service on 8 March 2004, ST/AI/2006/4, which came into force on 1 January 2007, could not be applied to him. Thus, he was not entitled to the lump sum option upon his separation from service. Pursuant to former staff rule 107.19a), he was entitled to have the Organization pay his travel repatriate him and his dependents from his duty station to his place of recruitment. Since the Applicant had submitted an affidavit to the Respondent stating that he had relocated to Nairobi, the Tribunal considered that the Respondent’s proposal to provide him with tickets or an amount equal to tickets for travel between Arusha and Nairobi and for shipment costs between Arusha and Nairobi for the Applicant and his dependents was a just and equitable way to resolve this matter.