2021-Ģ��ƵAT-1163

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT fully and fairly considered the Appellant��s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant��s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. Ģ��ƵAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant��s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding and the resulting restructuring, were valid reasons. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the contested decision discriminated against her or was tainted by improper motives, unfairness or lack of transparency. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT does not have to provide reasons for dismissing every submission, especially if the argument is not accepted or irrelevant. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. Ģ��ƵDT found the contested decision to be lawful and dismissed her application.

Legal Principle(s)

Fixed-term appointments carry no expectation of renewal or conversion. Separation as a result of expiration of the appointment takes place automatically and without prior notice on the expiration date specified in the letter of appointment. The administrative decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment can be reviewed if the Administration has not acted fairly, justly, or transparently with the staff member or was motivated by bias, prejudice or improper motive. An international organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts, and the redeployment of staff. Ģ��ƵAT will not interfere with a genuine organisation restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. International conventions are an important source of internationally accepted standards of employment. In practice, international conventions do not provide substantive rights for, or impose obligations on, employers and employees; rather, they guide lawmakers as to the content of legislation and assist courts and tribunals in the interpretation of it. International conventions and other human rights and labour law instruments do not directly apply as a source of law or remedial power to tribunals, they provide minimum standards of employment and general principles of law that are or should be embodied in the Organisation��s rules, regulations and policies.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

N/A

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

Beatriz Fernandez Carrillo

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement