2012-Ģ��ƵAT-250

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT rejected the Appellant��s request to have all appeal-related documents removed from her Ģ��ƵRWA official service file. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not err in finding no irregularity in the decision-making process under judicial review and consequently dismissing the application. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had to persuade it that there were flaws in the contested administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, the proceedings that led to it, or in the Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s judgment, which would warrant vacating the judgment. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had not raised new arguments, but only repeated her contentions which had been thoroughly considered and rejected by Ģ��ƵRWA DT. Ģ��ƵAT held that the evidence showed no irregularity, harassment, unlawful treatment, or discrimination against the Appellant. Ģ��ƵAT held that there were no grounds to reinstate the Appellant or to award her any kind of compensation, as the applicable law did not entitle her to such remedies. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her appointment. Ģ��ƵRWA DT recalled that fixed-term appointments carried no expectancy of renewal and that Ģ��ƵRWA had broad discretionary authority in the application of its Staff Regulations, Rules, and other issuances, including the renewal of appointments. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that the Ģ��ƵRWA had not created any legal expectancy of renewal, but to the contrary, Ģ��ƵRWA had repeatedly emphasised that her extension was for two months only. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that the Applicant had failed to show that her non-renewal was unlawful, that it was influenced by improper motives, or that it was flawed by procedural irregularities. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that she was a victim of discrimination, harassment, mobbing and bullying. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found, with respect to the Applicant��s contention that she was entitled to a termination indemnity, that her appointment had not been terminated but rather, it had not been renewed.

Legal Principle(s)

Fixed-term appointments carry no expectancy of renewal.

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

Rantsiou

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement