2012-Ģ��ƵAT-214

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the contentions against judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2009/004 were not receivable since only appeals against judgments on merits are receivable. Regarding the contentions against judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2011/080, Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no need to produce further documents. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly applied Article 10. 5 of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute in ordering compensation in lieu and that the Appellant had no right to request Ģ��ƵAT to order his reinstatement. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the non-renewal was based on a tainted performance evaluation and that Ģ��ƵDT, therefore, ordered the rescission of the decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly assessed the chances of the Appellant��s contract being renewed if the irregularities had not happened and that Ģ��ƵDT had committed no error in finding that the probability of a different outcome to be low. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that he had a legitimate expectation of renewal. Ģ��ƵAT held that the compensation granted by Ģ��ƵDT was in line with the Ģ��ƵAT jurisprudence. 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 contract and requested separately for Ģ��ƵDT to suspend that decision. Ģ��ƵDT issued judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2009/004 rejecting the request for suspension of action. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2011/080 Ģ��ƵDT addressed the merits. Ģ��ƵDT found that the contested decision had been taken in violation of the applicable procedure. Ģ��ƵDT ordered the rescission of the contested decision or, alternatively, compensation in lieu of two months' net base salary. Ģ��ƵDT also ordered the Organisation to pay the Applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of one month's net base salary. The Applicant appealed against both judgments.

Legal Principle(s)

The amount of the compensation constituting an alternative to the execution of the rescission of an administrative decision on appointment, promotion or termination must be determined by Ģ��ƵDT on a case-by-case basis. Ģ��ƵDT has a discretionary power to decide whether to refer a case to the Secretary-General or to another competent authority.

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

Fradin De Bellabre

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement