2011-��AT-124

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the Appellant had failed to show how ��DT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. ��AT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. ��AT held that it had no reason to disagree with ��DT��s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant��s contract. ��AT noted that the decision to take the Appellant��s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. ��AT noted that the Appellant��s non-selection for the 11 posts involved a large number of individuals and, unless each of them acted out of retaliation, an unlikely scenario, the Appellant could not succeed in establishing institutional prejudice. ��AT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant��s contract was valid and was not retaliatory. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service, claiming harassment and the failure to protect him from retaliation. ��DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Left deliberately blank

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT 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

Appellant

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement