UNDT/2020/182, Toson
The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant’s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself, give grounds for an expectancy of renewal unless the Administration has made an express promise that gives the staff member an expectancy that his or her appointment would be extended. The Tribunal held that the jurisprudence required the promise at least to be in writing. There was no indication that there was a firm commitment to renew revealed by the circumstances of the case, or a written promise which could have created a legitimate expectation. The argument that the contested decision produced direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant’s terms of appointment because it caused irreparable damage to his professional reputation was wrongly premised since there could have been no injury where there was no right.
The Applicant contested the decision to renew his fixed term appointment (“FTA”) by three months instead of two years that is, from the expiration date of 19 March to 19 June 2019.
For a decision to be challengeable under art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute, it must be final and produce direct legal consequences to the legal order. Conversely, a decision that is final but produces no direct legal consequence on a staff member’s terms of appointment or the contract of employment is not receivable by the Tribunal. Where the Administration rescinds the contested decision during the proceedings, the ApplicantNULLs allegations may be moot unless he can prove that he still sustains an injury for which the Tribunal can award relief. A judicial decision will be moot if any remedy issued would have no concrete effect because it would be purely academic or events subsequent to joining issue have deprived the proposed resolution of the dispute of practical significance thus placing the matter beyond the law, there no longer being an actual controversy between the parties or the possibility of any ruling having an actual, real effect.
The decision to extend the contract for a shorter period than the Applicant expected could not be said to be in non-compliance with his terms of appointment or the contract of employment which are that he had no expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service.