Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Applicant contested the decision not to extend her contract pending the rebuttal of her fourth performance appraisal. Simultaneously, the Applicant filed an application for interim measures seeking to suspend the execution of the contested decision. Further, the Applicant filed an application challenging the decision not to renew her contract upon its expiry. UNDT addressed the two separately filed applications as they were inextricably linked. With respect to the contested decision not to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment, UNDT found there were no good reasons to depart from the principle of renewing the contract pending completion of the rebuttal process. As for the contested decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment upon its expiry, UNDT found that the Applicant’s performance had not been adequately and properly evaluated during her third and fourth performance appraisal cycles as the First Reporting Officer had been biased against her and the Second Reporting Officer had not taken sufficient measures to ensure an objective assessment of her performance. UNDT considered that the third reason for the contested decision, namely that the Applicant had only partially met performance expectations for two consecutive years, could not stand. UNDT accepted the application and ordered the payment of pecuniary damages to the Applicant. UNDT further ordered payment to the Applicant of non-pecuniary damages arising from the significant stress she experienced because of the non-renewal of her contract and for the non-pecuniary harm the Applicant suffered as a direct result of the decision not to extend her appointment pending completion of the rebuttal process.