��DT/2013/039

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

. The Applicant claimed that the reason for the contested decision was not disclosed to her until the management evaluation stage and that the reason given was not supported legally or factually. The ��DT found that ��ICEF was obliged to provide the Applicant with a reason for the non-renewal of her contract when she requested it. The ��DT found that according to the performance ratings provided prior to the non-renewal of the Applicant��s contract, her performance, as a matter of law, cannot be regarded as unsatisfactory based on secs. 5.2 and 10.2 of CF/AI/2010-001 (Administrative instruction on separation from service). The ��DT found that the Respondent has been unable to justify in law or on the facts the reason given for the non-renewal of the Applicant��s fixed-term appointment. The ��DT found for the Applicant, with relief to be determined in a separate ruling.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision of ��ICEF not to renew her fixed-term appointment based on her allegedly unsatisfactory performance.

Legal Principle(s)

Non-renewal/non-extension: ��ICEF is provided with a significant degree of latitude when deciding whether or not to renew one of its staff member��s fixed-term appointment. However, the decision not to renew must be correct in law and based on valid reasons supported by facts.Performance: It is a general requirement that managers must use established performance tools to record unsatisfactory performance, that performance issues shall be brought to the attention of staff members in a timely manner, and that proper time shall be given for improvement.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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

Gauthier

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement