Ãå±±½ûµØ

The contested decision impacted the Applicant’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It had a negative impact on the Applicant’s legal situation vis-à-vis his employer and on his ability to properly plan his professional life. It also altered the reason for the Applicant’s separation from service from termination of contract due to abolishment of post to non-renewal. Consequently, the application is receivable ratione materiae.

There is no evidence confirming the alleged operational needs justifying the contested decision to keep the Applicant beyond 31 May 2021. There is enough evidence on record that, all combined, there was an express promise of termination of appointment made to the Applicant. This created a legitimate expectation on him that his appointment would be terminated, and he would be separated on 31 May 2021, receiving, as a result, the corresponding termination indemnity and separation entitlements.

The contested decision is unlawful and rescinded. Said rescission implies re-establishing the abolition of the Applicant’s post and his separation date following termination of appointment to 31 May 2021. As a result, the Applicant is entitled to all the corresponding termination indemnities and separation entitlements, including accrued annual leave. The Respondent may elect to pay compensation in lieu of rescinding the contested decision, as per art. 10.5(a), in the amount of ten months' net salary.

There is valid and sufficient evidence of the work-related suffering and anxiety caused by the contested decision. It is adequate and proportionate to grant the Applicant compensation for moral damages in the amount of USD5000.

The Tribunal cannot grant the payment of legal fees as it is not allowed under its legal framework. Likewise, the request for compensation for professional harm cannot be granted for lack of evidence of said harm.