2013-Ģ��ƵAT-298

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that concern about a high-level manager��s poor performance was not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. Ģ��ƵAT noted that it was well within the discretion of Ģ��ƵDT to determine the amount of compensation for moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case. Ģ��ƵAT held that the cases cited by the Appellant as examples of higher awards were neither applicable nor persuasive. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in awarding moral damages of USD 25,000. Ģ��ƵAT held there was no merit in the Appellant��s claim for reinstatement, noting that reinstatement is a remedy that addresses a staff member��s illegal separation from service. 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 appointment. Ģ��ƵDT found that Ģ��ƵFPA��s decision not to renew the Applicant��s fixed-term contract because of poor performance was lawful despite the Ģ��ƵFPA��s violation of his rights during the process. Ģ��ƵDT determined the Applicant had suffered mental distress, humiliation and damage to his reputation and awarded compensation for moral damages in the amount of USD 25,000.

Legal Principle(s)

A fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectation of renewal or conversion to another type of appointment. Concern about a high-level manager��s poor performance is not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. It is well within the discretion of Ģ��ƵDT to determine the amount of moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case.

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

Morsy

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement