Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision on the five-month extension of his fixed-term appointment was moot, and, even if Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August decision on the five-month extension of his fixed-term appointment was not moot, his claim to a longer renewal period of his fixed-term appointment cannot stand.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal misunderstood the provisions of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA International Staff Rule 4.13 on ¡°Fixed-Term Appointment¡± as he only referred to the provision stating ¡°[a] fixed-term appointment may be renewed for any period up to three years at a time¡± in paragraph 4.13(a). He overlooked paragraph 4.13(b) which states that ¡°[a] fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment, irrespective of the length of service¡±.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Flekal¡¯s fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectancy of renewal and the Agency¡¯s practice of renewal of contracts does not create a legitimate expectation of renewal. His claim for a three-year renewal of his fixed-term appointment has no basis, even without his separation for medical reasons.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/026.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member contested the Agency¡¯s decisions to (i) place him on an Opportunity to Improve process on 29 August 2022; (ii) renew his appointment for only six months on 25 August 2022 and (iii) extend his fixed-term appointment for five months on 29 August 2023.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/026, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that (1) the challenge to his placement on an Opportunity to Improve process was not receivable: (2) the challenge to the length of the extension of his fixed-term appointment in August 2022 was moot, as he had accepted several extensions thereafter and (3) the Agency rejected his challenge to the extension of his fixed-term appointment for five months in August 2023, finding that he had no expectancy for the appointment¡¯s renewal for any particular length.
The former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
An appeal before the Appeals Tribunal is not a rehearing of the matter but gives the parties the ability to appeal on narrow bases, such as errors of law, fact and jurisdiction of the first instance tribunal, not to further explain the evidence.
It is the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that 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 made an express promise that gives the staff member an expectancy that his or her appointment will be extended. The jurisprudence requires this promise to be in writing.
A decision to place a staff member on a performance improvement process does not have any direct or final legal consequences on the terms and conditions of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.