2015-罌厭弝ⅰAT-534

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT made an error of law when it applied 罌厭弝ⅰICEF Administrative Instruction CF/AI/2011-001 retroactively to review the non-renewal decision. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in law in concluding that it was the duty of the Administration to take measures to remedy failings in performance. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s conclusion that the non-renewal decision was vitiated by 罌厭弝ⅰICEF＊s failure to take remedial measures to improve Mr Assale＊s performance was without legal basis. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erroneously concluded that both the Chad Country Deputy Representative and the Representative had tainted or bad motives in deciding not to review Mr. Assale＊s appointment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰICEF＊s failure to complete Mr. Assale＊s performance appraisal before the end of January 2011 did not invalidate the non-renewal decision, as 罌厭弝ⅰDT erroneously determined. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT made an error of law when it concluded that 罌厭弝ⅰICEF was required to extend Mr Assale＊s fixed-term appointment until the Office of Internal Audit issued its Investigation Report addressing his harassment complaint and accordingly, that such a conclusion could not support 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s ultimate determination that the non-renewal decision was unlawful. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in law and exceeded its competence when it considered de novo whether harassment occurred and found that the Chad Country Representative had created a hostile work environment for Mr Assale and consequently, that finding could not support the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s ultimate determination that the non-renewal was unlawful. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT award of compensation was without basis and should be vacated. 罌厭弝ⅰAT granted the Secretary-General＊s appeal and vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

Accountability Referral: 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there were no grounds for 罌厭弝ⅰDT to refer both of the managers for accountability and that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence when it improperly requested to be informed of the outcomes of both referrals. 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Assale contested the decision not to renew his appointment on the grounds that 罌厭弝ⅰICEF failed to comply with its own regulations and rules. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found for Mr Assale, awarded compensation and referred the Chad Country Deputy Representative and the Representative to the Executive Director of 罌厭弝ⅰICEF for accountability.

Legal Principle(s)

An administrative decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment can be challenged on the grounds that the Organisation has not acted fairly, justly or transparently or was motivated by bias, prejudice or improper motive against the staff member; the staff member has the burden of proving such factors played a role in the administrative decision.

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 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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

Assale

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement