2016-Ģ��ƵAT-686

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which Ģ��ƵDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. Ģ��ƵAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to Ģ��ƵDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated Ģ��ƵDT��s judgment, and remanded the matter to Ģ��ƵDT.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. Ģ��ƵDT found that it was reasonable for the Administration to conclude that there would be a decrease in work assignable to the Applicant, and further held the Applicant��s allegation of a promise of renewal to be unfounded. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed her application.

Legal Principle(s)

An administrative decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment can be challenged as being unreasonable on the grounds that the Administration has not acted fairly, justly, or transparently, or was motivated by bias, prejudice, or improper motive against the staff member. Ģ��ƵDT may act inquisitorially to ensure that the evidentiary questions presented by the pleadings are properly examined in any hearing held to decide an application.

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

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement

28 Oct 2016