2019-Ģ��ƵAT-950

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the case was fully and fairly considered by Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT found no error of law or fact in the Ģ��ƵDT decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT thoroughly considered the material facts of the case at issue and found that the qualification the Appellant had attained was not the equivalent of the required first-level university degree. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT conclusions were consistent with the evidence and that the Appellant did not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by Ģ��ƵAT. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any error in the Ģ��ƵDT determination that she was ineligible for a one-time amnesty for staff members under Section 6 of ST/AI/2018/5, since this provision applies to staff members who requested a review of their degrees under Section 4 of ST/AI/2018/5. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no error in the Ģ��ƵDT finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to renew her contract was tainted by improper motives, unfairness, or lack of transparency. Ģ��ƵAT held that the lack of the minimum educational requirement on her part constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her contract. Ģ��ƵAT held that since no illegality was found, there was no justification for the award of compensation. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her appointment upon its expiry on the grounds that she did not meet the minimum educational requirements for her position. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Fixed-term appointments and appointments of limited duration carry no expectation of renewal or conversion to another type of appointment. The renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts does not, in and of itself, give grounds for an expectancy of renewal, unless the Administration has given an express promise that gives the staff member an expectancy that his or her appointment will be extended, in which the jurisprudence this promise at least to be in writing.

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

Diop

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement