2012-Ģ��ƵAT-261

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT addressed the staff member��s appeal seeking reversal of the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment with compensation for the actual and moral damage, as well as the reinstatement of her appointment. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s letter of appointment was clear and unambiguous that the appointment did not carry an expectation of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT was correct in finding that the Agency��s extension of the Appellant��s fixed-term appointment beyond 31 March 2009 did not convert her appointment into another type of appointment. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant did not dispute that the Agency had lost the funding for her position and that the loss of funding was the reason for which her contract was not extended. Ģ��ƵAT noted that Ģ��ƵRWA DT had found the Appellant��s statements that she was not aware she was entering into a fixed-term contract were not credible because the terms of her letter of appointment were clear, unambiguous, and easy to understand. Ģ��ƵAT held that to overturn the Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s adverse credibility finding, it had to be satisfied the finding was not supported by the evidence or was unreasonable. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s adverse credibility determination was fully supported by the record. 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 extend her fixed-term appointment and separate her from service. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

A fixed-term appointment has no expectation of renewal or conversion to another type of appointment. A staff member may challenge the non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, procedurally deficient, or the result of prejudice or some other improper motivation; the staff member has the burden of proving such factors played a role in the administrative decision.

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

Badawi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement