Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT noted that UNDT’s review of the factual situation by necessity involved consideration of issues beyond the mere fact of the non-renewal of the Appellant’s contract and, thus, found no merit in the Appellant’s submission that UNDT’s deliberations on the issue of non-renewal took place in isolation of the facts surrounding the decision. With respect to the Appellant’s contention that UNDT failed to account for the negative impact of the non-renewal of his personal and professional life, UNAT found no error in the Secretary-General’s exercise of discretion to take action to address the potential negative impact of allegations on the reputation and proper functioning of the Organisation. UNAT held that the UNDT Judge considered both the reasons for the non-renewal of the contract and the circumstances surrounding the making of the decision. UNAT held that neither the failure of UNDT to address the extent to which the press conference had been sanctioned nor the failure to record in its judgment that allegations had been made against others were omissions constituted, on the part of UNDT, manifestly unreasonable decisions such as to impugn its judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.