��DT/2014/145

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

If the Applicant was labouring under the belief that pursuant to the Agreement, the Respondent was giving her a guarantee of a new post or that she would be laterally transitioned, that belief was misplaced. Nothing in the Agreement or any evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the Respondent was in a position to simply ��give�� the Applicant another position within ��EP. Positions in the Organizations are not filled or presumed to be filled according to the will of managers but are subject to the Staff Rules and Regulations. The Applicant was not justified in harbouring a legitimate expectation that the Respondent would bypass existing rules and regulations to offer her a post. Whether the Applicant was well advised to sign the Agreement or not is a matter that is not within the province of the Tribunal to determine. However the Tribunal cannot help noting that Clause 7 of the Agreement might have created the, albeit wrong, impression, that the Applicant would be offered a job by the Respondent.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Parties entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement (Agreement) to ��settle and resolve all matter arising out of or related to ��EP��s decision, for budgetary reasons, to not renew [the Applicant��s] contract when it expires on 4 July 2012.�� As part of the Agreement, ��EP extended the Applicant��s appointment through to 31 December 2012 and agreed to make ��good faith efforts [��] to help find [her] a suitable post, either within ��EP or outside ��EP [��] either on or before her contract expires��. The Applicant challenged ��EP��s decision, pursuant to article 2.1(c) of the ��DT Statute and article 7.4 of the Rules of Procedure, to ��not comply with the spirit of the settlement agreement��.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

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 ��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

Ngenda

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement