2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1043

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Secretary-General appealed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment as it related to the non-renewal decision only. Ģ��ƵAT held that a shifting onus of proof was appropriate where the non-renewal decision was based on a lack of funds. Ģ��ƵAT found nothing objectionable with the Ģ��ƵDT��s reference to the burden or onus of proof resting with the Secretary-General in the circumstances of the case. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in concluding that the Secretary-General failed to establish by evidence that the financial situation of the Ģ��Ƶ body which had engaged Ms Loose at the time of the separation was still sufficiently grave to justify the non-renewal. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in its decision that the Appellant had a reasonable and legitimate expectation that her appointment would be extended or renewed. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested three decisions: the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment; her non-selection for another position; and the decision not to grant her special leave without pay. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Secretary-General failed to justify in law the non-renewal and that the Applicant��s separation was therefore unlawful. Ģ��ƵDT ordered rescission of the decision or payment in lieu.

Legal Principle(s)

A fixed-term appointment carries no expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of the length of service. The onus or burden of proof in establishing error lies initially with the staff member to establish a sufficient or apparent case of the adequacy of resources to support renewal or extension or other relevant grounds for not discontinuing employment; however, when the initial onus to establish the grounds for not discontinuing employment has been discharged by the staff member, the onus of justifying in law the decision not to renew, where that is justiciable, moves to the Administration.

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

Loose

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement