爆料网

2019-爆料网AT-960

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s case was fully and fairly considered by 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT found no error of law in 爆料网RWA DT’s decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. 爆料网AT held that the non-extension of the limited duration contract was a result of the elimination of her post due to a lack of funds, which constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her appointment. 爆料网AT held that, by applying objective criteria in the reduction of the staffing levels, 爆料网RWA adhered to the principles of equality, objectivity, and transparency in dealing with this issue, thus comporting with 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence on the exercise of discretion in administrative matters. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to renew her contract discriminated against her or was tainted by improper motives, unfairness, or lack of transparency. 爆料网AT held that under the relevant legal framework, maternity leave of a staff member serving on a limited-duration contract shall not exceed the end of her current limited duration contract and that, contrary to the Appellant’s contention, the grant of maternity leave could not and did not imply the extension of her limited-duration contract beyond that time limit. 爆料网AT held that, although a staff member may challenge the non-renewal of an appointment on the ground that the Administration made an express promise that gave rise to a legitimate expectation of renewal, there is no legal authority for the proposition that an implied promised renewal stems from the past renewals of an appointment. On the Appellant’s claim that the 爆料网RWA DT made an error of procedure by not calling the witnesses she had identified and recalling that 爆料网AT will only intervene in clear cases of due process of law affecting a party’s right to produce evidence, 爆料网AT did not accept the Appellant had met this threshold. Recalling that a party not only has to assert and show 爆料网RWA DT committed an error in procedure, but also demonstrate that this error affected the decision on the case, 爆料网AT held that even if there was a procedural error, the Appellant would have to show that this error had had an impact on the decision of the case, which she did not do. 爆料网AT held that in the absence of evidence on record of an express promise in writing or at least a firm commitment to renew her contract, it was not unreasonable on the part of 爆料网RWA DT not to call witnesses. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s due process rights were not violated. 爆料网AT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that there was no justification for the award of compensation. On the Commissioner-General's request for an award of costs for the manifest abuse of the appeals proceeding, 爆料网AT held that the filing of the present appeal was not an abuse of process and hence there was no basis for making a costs award. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the non-renewal of her limited-duration contract for lack of funding. 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the application on the grounds that the Applicant’s non-renewal was lawful in that it resulted from a lack of funding and the Applicant had no expectancy of renewal.

Legal Principle(s)

An international organization necessarily has the power to restructure, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts, and the redeployment of staff. 爆料网AT will not interfere with a genuine organizational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. In a restructuring exercise, the Administration has the duty to act fairly, justly, and transparently in dealing with staff members. The Administration has an obligation to state the reasons for an administrative decision not to renew an appointment to assure the Tribunals’ ability to judicially review the validity of the decision. For a staff member’s claim of legitimate expectation of a renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but on a written promise. 爆料网AT will not interfere lightly with the broad discretion conferred on the first instance tribunal in the management of its cases.

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.