Ãå±±½ûµØ

it is undisputed that the Administration did not afford the Applicant written notice so he learnt about the non-renewal only upon the expiration of his fixed-term appointment. This practice, however, does not disable the right to seek review of the non-renewal decision by the UNDT. The Tribunal considers that the objective factual element as to the non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment consists in the memorandum instructing the Applicant to commence his separation procedure, dated 4 January and delivered to the Applicant on 11 January 2016. Recalling that the Applicant sought information...

The evidence showed that the Applicant’s post was abolished and his fixed-term appointment was not extended for this reason. Therefore, the reason provided by the Administration for the non-renewal was lawful. The Applicant has adduced insufficient evidence that he was promised a renewal. The Applicant should have been aware that his fixed-term appointment expired automatically at the end of its term. The Administration properly notified the Applicant of the non-renewal of his appointment. While the notification of the decision not to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment did not state...

Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal The Applicant appears to argue that the Administration created an expectancy of renewal of his contract by referring to statements, allegedly made by various individuals of the Organization. The individuals concerned dispute the facts as presented by the Applicant and he has not adduced any written evidence regarding a firm commitment to renewal. In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that “[i]n order for a staff member’s claim of legitimate expectation of a renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but...

Therefore, the facts resulting from this investigation were not established to a sufficient standard that would permit the Administration to later rely on them to act against the Applicant once he became a staff member. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Administration acted as a reasonable decision maker in deciding to terminate the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment and finds the contested decision unlawful and decides to rescind it. The contested decision is rescinded. Under art. 10.5(a) of its Statute, the Respondent may elect to pay the Applicant compensation in lieu of the...

Scope of the review The original decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was notified to her in January 2019. The communications between the Applicant and the Administration in this regard in April-May 2020 were merely reiterations of a challenge and of the original decision. These communications did not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines. The Applicant failed to challenge the decision made in January 2019 within the statutory time limit and, therefore, the Tribunal rejects the application with respect to the Administration’s refusal to grant a permanent...

Relevant matters were ignored. The timing and circumstances of the Applicant’s appraisals, sick leave taken, the nature of the four-month assignment in 2018 and the reasons for it, are relevant. These factors have been considered in coming to a determination that a proper exercise of the Respondent’s discretion would have been to consider an appraisal of the Applicant’s work for the four-month period in 2018. The Applicant was on sick leave for the first seven months of the year but there is no provision in the regulatory framework indicating that the appraisal for a shorter period of work...

1. In relation to the Applicant’s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that Staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae...

In relation to the Applicant’s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae. On...