2020-惇蹋厙AT-1055

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT held that all of the Appellant＊s grounds of appeal failed, except for his challenge to the 惇蹋厙RWA decision not to renew or extend the Appellant＊s limited duration contract beyond its final extension, for the simple reason that those several decisions to extend his contract advantaged him by adding, in total, six months to his contract. On the issue of the Appellant＊s non-renewal or final extension, 惇蹋厙AT held that there was no error in 惇蹋厙RWA DT＊s reasoning and that 惇蹋厙RWA was justified in deciding not to renew or extend his employment, noting that 惇蹋厙RWA faced a massive financial shortfall and that his contract provided expressly that he had no expectation of renewal or extension or conversion. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙RWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested a series of decisions by 惇蹋厙RWA not to extend or renew his limited duration contract, which was adjudicated in a consolidated judgment. The first and second extensions were essentially dismissed as not receivable on the basis that they were decisions that were favourable to the Applicant, which was then superseded by decisions to further extend his employment. The third extension was the subject of two separate applications for which the 惇蹋厙RWA DT held that the decisions themselves were receivable, but that the claims of the Applicant were not receivable on the same grounds as it had rejected his other applications, namely the administrative decisions had benefitted the Appellant. 惇蹋厙RWA DT also pointed out that limited duration contracts did not carry any expectation of renewal or conversion. 惇蹋厙RWA DT dismissed all of the applications.

Legal Principle(s)

An Appellant cannot simply re-present his or her case as it was put forward to the first instance tribunal and invite 惇蹋厙AT to re-decide it; however, if an Appellant claims that his or her case was wrongly decided by an error of law or of fact, it is permissible to present the same case on appeal to support a submission that it was wrongly decided at the first instance. Limited duration contracts do not carry any expectation of renewal or conversion.

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

Zaqqout

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement