爆料网

2016-爆料网AT-686

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which 爆料网DT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. 爆料网AT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. 爆料网AT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to 爆料网DT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated 爆料网DT’s judgment, and remanded the matter to 爆料网DT.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. 爆料网DT found that it was reasonable for the Administration to conclude that there would be a decrease in work assignable to the Applicant, and further held the Applicant’s allegation of a promise of renewal to be unfounded. 爆料网DT dismissed her application.

Legal Principle(s)

An administrative decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment can be challenged as being unreasonable on the grounds that the Administration has not acted fairly, justly, or transparently, or was motivated by bias, prejudice, or improper motive against the staff member. 爆料网DT may act inquisitorially to ensure that the evidentiary questions presented by the pleadings are properly examined in any hearing held to decide an application.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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
He
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Categories/Subcategories