2013-Ģ��ƵAT-332

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not commit an error of fact or law when it concluded that the difference of treatment between the Appellant and his former colleagues who had undergone a competitive selection process was lawful. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was reasonable and lawful to treat them differently at the time of deciding about the possible extension of his fixed-term appointment because equality meant not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no flaw in the motivation of the impugned judgment that could result in a manifestly unreasonable decision such as to allow the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT held that no expectancy of renewal could arise from the terms of employment nor was it created by the Administration. Ģ��ƵAT held that the extensions of contract granted to the Appellant constituted the adequate treatment he had the right to receive but could not be considered as modifying the nature of his contract or terms of employment. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the non-renewal of his contract, claiming unequal treatment. Ģ��ƵDT found against the Applicant. Ģ��ƵDT concluded that the distinction made by Ģ��ƵHCR between fixed-term appointments (FTA) of long duration and FTAs of short duration had a legal foundation and that it fell within the discretionary authority of Ģ��ƵHCR to distinguish between those two categories of staff.

Legal Principle(s)

Equality means not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal.

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

McCluskey

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement