UNDT/2020/168

UNDT/2020/168, Alema

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant did not show that the decision to not renew his appointment was tainted by improper motive or bias, or that the process leading up to the decision to abolish the post he encumbered was irregular or improper. The Respondent sufficiently demonstrated that the Mission acted appropriately under the circumstances before it.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant challenged the Respondent’s decision to not renew her appointment with the Mission beyond 31 March 2019.

Legal Principle(s)

A fixed-term appointment carries no guarantee of renewal. There is always a presumption that the administration’s decision was properly executed and should stand unless it is shown to be tainted or otherwise improperly made. The Tribunal’s task is not to replace the administration’s decision with its own but to assess the lawfulness of the decision.

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

Alema

Entity

UNAMID

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2019/30

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi