2011-Ģ��ƵAT-138

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that, in order for the Appellant��s claim of legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertions, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case; and Ģ��ƵAT held that it found no reason to reverse the finding of Ģ��ƵDT that there was no evidence of such a commitment. Ģ��ƵAT held that the efficient or outstanding performance of a staff member on a temporary appointment could not legitimately create an expectancy of renewal of appointment. Ģ��ƵAT held that the need for translator services at Ģ��ƵAMI could not have created a legitimate expectation or right to have the appointment renewed. Ģ��ƵAT held that the arguments raised in the appeal were essentially identical to those raised before Ģ��ƵDT and the Appellant failed to identify any specific error made by Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of demonstrating how Ģ��ƵDT erred in making the impugned judgment. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his temporary appointment on the ground that he took it up with the understanding that within three months a post at the FS-5 level would be advertised and that he would be interviewed. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the application.

Legal Principle(s)

In order to sustain a claim of legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case. The appellant has the burden of satisfying Ģ��ƵAT that the judgment rendered by Ģ��ƵDT is defective by identifying the alleged defects in the judgment and stating the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective; it is not sufficient for an appellant to state that he or she disagrees with the outcome of the case or repeat the arguments submitted before Ģ��ƵDT.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Abdalla

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement