2021-��AT-1159

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ��DT Judgment. The Tribunal explained although there is no expectancy of renewal, renewal of FTAs are ��normally�� for a period of two years ��at a time��. Because of the words ��at a time��, the Tribunal cautioned that although a new FTA would supersede a previous one, it would not necessarily subsume the previous one. As such, a subsequent FTA would constitute a separate FTA. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that the applicable law in this case allowed the Administration to renew FTAs for periods less than two years. In conclusion, ��AT held there was no error in the ��DT Judgment dismissing the Appellant��s claim for mootness. What the staff member had originally sought �C an extension of two years �C he ultimately received it.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member serving at the P-5 level challenged the Administration��s decision to renew his FTA by only nine months, instead of the usual two years. The ��DT held the application was not receivable because in the intervening time from when the application was filed and when the tribunal decided the case, the Administration had issued another Personnel Action, which extended the staff member��s FTA by another year. The tribunal reasoned the latest Personnel Action had superseded the previous one. The tribunal also explained there can be no legitimate expectation of renewal, absent an express promise. Therefore, given the latest Personnel Action superseded the one that was originally challenged, the staff member was unable to show how his rights continued to be affected by the contested decision.

Legal Principle(s)

A fixed term appointment (FTA) does not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. If the claim brought by a staff member is ultimately satisfied by the Administration by the time the Tribunal decides the case, the appeal may become moot.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

Appeal is dimissed, and ��DT Judgment on Receivability is affirmed.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Asr Ahmed Toson

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement