¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2010/161

UNDT/2010/161, Ahmed

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The various letters of appointment that the applicant had received in the past contained a provision of non-expectancy of renewal. The applicant’s main contention was that the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment was an act of retaliation because he reported some allegations of financial fraud. The respondent’s primary submission is that the non-renewal of the applicant’s fixed-term appointment was based on unsatisfactory performance as evidenced in some PAS reports, which had later been upheld by a rebuttal panel. UNDT found that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was taken on proper grounds in accordance with the appropriate procedures and that there was no retaliation against him for bringing to the attention of management allegations of financial fraud and misconduct. These allegations were properly investigated and were found to be lacking in substance. Outcome: Application dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The applicant’s fixed-term appointment was not renewed after he had served on a series of fixed-term appointments from June 1985 to December 2005.

Legal Principle(s)

It is clear from several judgments of the former Administrative Tribunal as well as the Dispute Tribunal that an expectancy of renewal may be created by countervailing circumstances. Examples of such circumstances include arbitrary or other extraneous motives on the part of the Administration and particularly the failure to accord to the staff member her/his due process rights. Accordingly, whilst it may be argued with force that there is no automatic right to the renewal of a fixed-term appointment, it is clear that any decision should be based on proper grounds and in conformity with due process. However, the mere fact of a series of consecutive renewals cannot of itself be conclusive of a legitimate legal expectancy having been formed. Other things being equal, they are nevertheless very important considerations to be taken into account and may, in an appropriate case, require explanation.

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 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
Ahmed
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Applicable Law