UNDT/2012/009 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

UNDT/2012/009, Checa-Meedan

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Outcome: The application was rejected. The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to establish a factual basis for her alleged expectation that her contract would be renewed, that she would be given a regularized position, or that she would be placed on special leave without pay at the expiry of her contract. The UNDT therefore found that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s temporary appointment was not unlawful.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her temporary appointment with UNCTAD. The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to establish that the contested decision was tainted by improper motives.

Legal Principle(s)

Burden of proof, allegation of improper motivation: The onus is on the party making allegations to provide sufficient evidence of improper motivation against her or him.Burden of proof, assertion of fact: Generally, it is for the party who asserts a fact to prove it. Legitimate expectation: A legitimate expectation giving rise to contractual or legal obligations occurs where a party acts in such a way, by representation by deeds or words, that is intended or is reasonably likely to induce the other party to act in some way in reliance upon that representation and that the other party does so. Whether a staff member has a legitimate expectation of renewal will depend on whether it can be established that anything said or done by the Administration amounted to a firm commitment to renew the contract so that in spite of the wording of her or his contract a staff member could reasonably have expected a renewal.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

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

Checa-Meedan

Entity

UNCTAD

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NY/2010/039/UNAT/1701

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

New York