2017-惇蹋厙AT-788

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT did not err in law and/or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that 惇蹋厙RWA＊s decision not to renew the Appellant＊s fixed-term appointment at the end of the probationary period was a lawful exercise of its discretion. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT correctly found that a performance-related justification for the non-renewal was properly given in the form of his electronic Performance Evaluation Report. 惇蹋厙AT held that the irregularities in the assessment of the Appellant＊s performance were not sufficiently substantial or consequential so as to rebut the presumption that the non-renewal decision was lawful and to shift the burden of proof to the Administration. 惇蹋厙AT held that the non-renewal decision was taken without bias and that the Appellant had knowledge of his shortcomings and ample opportunity to comment and to improve his performance. 惇蹋厙AT held that the Appellant＊s submission that the assessment of his performance was unfair as he had not yet been deployed to the field and thus was deprived of the opportunity to carry out his duties was without merit, noting that 惇蹋厙RWA has a broad discretionary power regarding deployment of staff members in the field. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT did not err in law and/or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that 惇蹋厙RWA appropriately decided to close the investigation into the Appellant＊s complaint of harassment and abuse of power. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT did not err by finding that the repeated suggestions to the Appellant to resign in lieu of termination did not amount to harassment or abuse of power in the circumstances because the advantages and disadvantages of resignation versus termination were openly negotiated and discussed. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙RWA DT correctly stated that all other alleged acts of misconduct did not constitute harassment or abuse of power or were not raised in the complaint. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions not to extend his appointment and to close the investigation following his complaint of prohibited conduct. 惇蹋厙RWA DT dismissed both applications in their entirety.

Legal Principle(s)

The presumption of regularity is the presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. The presumption of regularity is rebuttable.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙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

Soliman

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement