2020-Ģ��ƵAT-978

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT rejected the Appellant��s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the judge who signed the impugned judgment. Ģ��ƵAT considered that: (1) the Appellant did not provide any evidence of his suitability for conversion to a continuing appointment; (2) his appeal was based solely on the impossibility of the retroactive extension of his fixed-term appointments; and (3) he had been made aware that his fixed-term appointment would be extended pending the appropriate assessment of his performance under the rebuttal process. Accordingly, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT was correct in its finding that there was no basis for the conversion of his fixed-term appointment into a continuing appointment. Ģ��ƵAT held that the procedural irregularities, particularly the retroactive extension of the Appellant��s fixed-term appointment, were immaterial and inconsequential to his appointment. Ģ��ƵAT found no merit in the Appellant��s claim that Ģ��ƵDT did not grant him an opportunity to provide evidence of moral damages. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT��s delay in issuing its judgment did not entitle the Appellant to moral damages and that this was beyond the scope of his initial application, noting that the delay did not stem from any act of the Secretary-General or of the Appellant��s superiors. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s other claims and issues raised as possible grounds for moral compensation were not within the scope of his application. Ģ��ƵAT held that rescission of a decision by the Administration was not a proper basis for moral damage because it was favourable to the Appellant��s immediate interests. Ģ��ƵAT found that to award compensation for moral damage based on rescission could be perceived as a possible deterrent to future rescissions by the Administration and possibly a threat to the regular functioning of the informal dispute resolution system. Ģ��ƵAT held that the circumstances of the case did not qualify Ģ��ƵDT to invoke its statutory jurisdiction to award compensation for moral injury. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant challenged the decision to extend his fixed-term appointment in increments pending the rebuttal process of his performance appraisal and requested Ģ��ƵDT to confirm the conversion of his appointment to a continuing appointment. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application regarding extensions as not receivable as the Applicant had failed to make a timely request for management evaluation. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the claim for a continuing appointment as the Appellant had no basis to presume that his appointment would be so converted.

Legal Principle(s)

Only substantial procedural irregularities can render an administrative decision unlawful.

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

Thombiano

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement