±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2021/032. It also considered a cross-appeal by Ms. Hilaire-Madsen claiming that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have rescinded the Administration¡¯s non-renewal decision and awarded her alternative compensation as well as compensation for moral damages.

As regards the lawfulness of the non-renewal decision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that under the specific circumstances, at the material time of the contested non-renewal decision at the end of December 2018, from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer, with the information available at...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. The Tribunal explained although there is no expectancy of renewal, renewal of FTAs are ¡°normally¡± for a period of two years ¡°at a time¡±. Because of the words ¡°at a time¡±, the Tribunal cautioned that although a new FTA would supersede a previous one, it would not necessarily subsume the previous one. As such, a subsequent FTA would constitute a separate FTA. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that the applicable law in this case allowed the Administration to renew FTAs for periods less than two years. In conclusion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there...