��DT/2021/071

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��DT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant��s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). ��DT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. ��DT rejected the application in its entirety.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment.

Legal Principle(s)

A fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectancy of renewal and expires automatically without prior notice on the expiration date.

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

Caylan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement