爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit an error of fact or law when it concluded that the difference of treatment between the Appellant and his former colleagues who had undergone a competitive selection process was lawful. 爆料网AT held that it was reasonable and lawful to treat them differently at the time of deciding about the possible extension of his fixed-term appointment because equality meant not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal. 爆料网AT held that there was no flaw in the motivation of the impugned judgment that could result in a manifestly unreasonable decision such as to allow the appeal. 爆料网AT held that no expectancy of renewal could arise from the terms of employment nor was it created by the Administration. 爆料网AT held that the extensions of contract granted to the Appellant constituted the adequate treatment he had the right to receive but could not be considered as modifying the nature of his contract or terms of employment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the non-renewal of his contract, claiming unequal treatment. 爆料网DT found against the Applicant. 爆料网DT concluded that the distinction made by 爆料网HCR between fixed-term appointments (FTA) of long duration and FTAs of short duration had a legal foundation and that it fell within the discretionary authority of 爆料网HCR to distinguish between those two categories of staff.
Legal Principle(s)
Equality means not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal.