2016-UNAT-686

2016-UNAT-686, He

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which UNDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. UNAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. UNAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to UNDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated UNDT’s judgment, and remanded the matter to UNDT.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. UNDT found that it was reasonable for the Administration to conclude that there would be a decrease in work assignable to the Applicant, and further held the Applicant’s allegation of a promise of renewal to be unfounded. UNDT dismissed her application.

Legal Principle(s)

An administrative decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment can be challenged as being unreasonable on the grounds that the Administration has not acted fairly, justly, or transparently, or was motivated by bias, prejudice, or improper motive against the staff member. UNDT may act inquisitorially to ensure that the evidentiary questions presented by the pleadings are properly examined in any hearing held to decide an application.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Entity

DCM

Case Number(s)

2016-908

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York

Date of Judgment