±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made several errors of law when it found ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s decision not to renew Mr Said¡¯s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not accord any deference to ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s conclusion that Mr Said¡¯s performance was poor and, instead, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant¡¯s case as ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, specifically whether the Appellant had a legitimate expectation for the renewal of his fixed-term contract and rights related to the renewal of his fixed-term contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in the absence of any evidence of a firm commitment of renewal, there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation and/or right for the renewal of his contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that it was clear from the evidence that the Administration was involved in the process of revising the activities in Iraq...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant¡¯s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. The Appellant¡¯s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was uncontested that the Respondent had a fixed-term appointment and emphasized that there is no expectancy of renewal of fixed-term appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Respondent could not rely on general statements to assume that her contract would be renewed and that she was even encouraged to apply for positions that would be published in the coming weeks. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that there was no illegality or abuse in the decision to abolish the Respondent¡¯s post and to not renew her fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant¡¯s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the amount of the award of compensation for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of moral damages was supported by the evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and that the amount was not excessive based on that evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the award in the present case should be compared with awards in similar non-renewal cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not committed any error in its assessment of the award of moral damages and that the Secretary-General had not established any ground which would justify ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly dismissed the Appellant¡¯s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to...

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment, and remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for consideration on the merits.