¹ú²úAV

2019-UNAT-903

2019-UNAT-903, Afeworki

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. UNAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the UNDT judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment and the decision not to grant her a continuing appointment. Following an application to UNDT and an appeal to UNAT, the matter was remanded to UNDT for consideration on the merits. UNDT found that the application was not receivable as the Applicant had failed to request management evaluation and was not in active service for the required period. UNDT found that the non-renewal was based on a bona fide restructuring, the comparative review was not due to any discrimination, all staff affected by the retrenchment had been similarly treated, the Secretary-General provided an adequate explanation to rebut any inference of discrimination of favoritism towards four staff members who were reassigned, and the Applicant failed to produce any evidence in support of her allegations of discrimination. UNDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

The Administration has broad discretion to reorganise its operations and department to adapt to economic vagaries and challenges; in doing so, it has a duty to act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process.

Outcome
Appeal 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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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
Afeworki
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type