2017-UNAT-746, Auda
UNAT held that the fact that the non-renewal decision was communicated verbally was, by itself, of no consequence since there is no explicit requirement in law for such notification to be in writing. UNAT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment dismissing the staff member’s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.
The staff member contested the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment. UNDT found that the application was receivable since the staff member had requested management evaluation within the prescribed time limit on the grounds that the time limit started to run from the date of the written notification of the previously verbally communicated non-renewal decision. On the merits, UNDT concluded that the staff member had not met the burden of proving an “express promise” in writing containing a “firm commitment” of the Administration to renew his fixed-term appointment, so as to support his contention that he had a legitimate expectancy of renewal.
Written notification is not a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision.