爆料网

2011-爆料网AT-184

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT noted that there was no evidence to support the Appellant’s allegations that the statements of her witnesses were used in their entirety by 爆料网DT and, even assuming that the 爆料网DT had been in breach of its rules of procedure by making those statements, 爆料网AT held that it had not been established that the said breach gave rise to an error in procedure liable to influence the judgment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s allegation, that the staff member who recruited her gave her assurances liable to create a well-founded expectation of contract renewal, was not justified. Noting that 爆料网DT considered that the decision not to renew the contract was lawfully based on the evaluation of the Appellant’s performance, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was unable to produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations that 爆料网DT erred on questions on fact. On the Appellant’s other claims on issues separate from the impugned decision, 爆料网AT noted that they had not been submitted for management evaluation and therefore 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not fail to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by dismissing them as non-receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her contract. 爆料网DT found that the decision was lawful; however, 爆料网DT awarded compensation for the damage resulting from the rebuttal panel’s unreasonable delay in completing the rebuttal process.

Legal Principle(s)

A fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectancy of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. The burden of proving that the grounds for non-renewal were unlawful lies with the staff member contesting the decision. The burden of proving that the judge of the first instance erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, lies with the Appellant. It is the staff member’s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the 爆料网; ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse.

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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
Jennings
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type