2015-Ģ��ƵAT-529

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal of judgment Nos. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2013/035 and Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2014/004. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no basis to support the Appellant��s claim of legitimate expectations and/or rights for the renewal of his contract. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ģ��ƵRWA DT erred with respect to the amount awarded for al damages. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT evaluated all the evidence before it and made a reasoned assessment as to the amount of anxiety and stress suffered by the Appellant. Ģ��ƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the determination of Ģ��ƵRWA DT. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not provide any evidence to show that Ģ��ƵRWA made an error in dismissing his claim for further payment and rejected his contention in this regard. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ģ��ƵRWA DT erred in not admitting three recordings as evidence. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2013/035, Ģ��ƵDT found partly for the Applicant. In judgment on remedies No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2014/004, Ģ��ƵRWA DT awarded moral damages.

Legal Principle(s)

A fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectation of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

Only financial compensation; Only financial compensation.

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

Riano

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement