Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2022/080

UNDT/2022/080, Wathanafa

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Based on the facts as presented in the application, the Tribunal determined two issues; (i) whether the Applicant was forced to retire, and (ii) whether the decision not to renew her FTA beyond 30 June 2021 was lawful. On issue one, the Tribunal held that based on the separation notice given to the Applicant dated 18 May 2021, read together with the Applicant’s letter of appointment and the evidence produced by the MONUSCO Chief of Human Resources during the hearing, there is no doubt that hers was a case of non-renewal of appointment. The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant was not forced to retire. Regarding issue two, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not dispute the fact that MONUSCO did not renew her appointment following a lawful downsizing exercise which involved abolition of the post she encumbered effective 30 June 2021 by the General Assembly. She did not equally dispute the fact that these were legitimate reasons which were supported by facts, in keeping with established jurisprudence. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that all relevant facts and evidence considered, the decision not to renew the Applicant’s FTA beyond 30 June 2021was lawful. The remedies sought by the Applicant were not tenable. The application was, accordingly, dismissed for lack of merit.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to not renew her fixed-term appointment beyond 30 June 2021 and to separate her on retirement.

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to staff regulation 4.5, a fixed-term appointment does not carry an expectancy of renewal. However, according to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, discretionary decisions regarding renewal of appointments are subject to evaluation for reasonableness, lack of arbitrariness or improper purpose.  

Outcome
Dismissed on merits
Outcome Extra Text

 

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Wathanafa
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Document Topic/Theme :