2014-Ģ��ƵAT-426

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. Ģ��ƵAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to Ģ��ƵDT for his witness to be called. Ģ��ƵAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the Ģ��ƵDT judgment and that it was not clear that Ģ��ƵDT had considered that evidence. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by Ģ��ƵDT for not calling the witness. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case under Article 2. 1(d) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute, by not allowing the Appellant to call a witness. Ģ��ƵAT remanded the case to Ģ��ƵDT, to hear the evidence of the Appellant��s witness. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal and remanded the case to Ģ��ƵDT to be considered by a different judge.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. Ģ��ƵDT issued judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2013/025, dismissing the application. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant had failed to satisfy the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was tainted by improper considerations or was otherwise unlawful. Ģ��ƵDT found that the recommendations of the Final Report were rendered irrelevant as they were never implemented because the Van Field Office was closed due to damage caused by the earthquake. Ģ��ƵDT found that the non-renewal decision was thus solely an Organisational measure that Ģ��ƵHCR was forced to take following the earthquake. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the Applicant��s argument that he was not treated in the same manner as the other staff members, finding that his situation was different from that of the staff members who continued to serve their posts.

Legal Principle(s)

The burden of proving that the grounds for non-renewal were unlawful lies with the staff member contesting the decision not to renew his or her contract.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Kacan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement