¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2011/076

UNDT/2011/076, Perrot-Maitre

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

When reviewing the conditions set out in Article 13 of the RoP, the Tribunal considered whether, in the light of the allegation of non-performance, the proper procedure relating to performance and e-PAS had been followed. It found that the decision was prima facie unlawful because the Respondent did not thoroughly follow its own rules and/or practices (a) by deciding not to renew the Applicant’s appointment without allowing the rebuttal process to be completed, and (b) by its failure to ensure a timely implementation of the 2010-2011 e- PAS.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

On 11 March 2011, the Applicant, a P-5 staff member of UNEP who had joined the Organization in 2009, was informed that her appointment would not be renewed beyond 2 May 2011 for ‘unsatisfactory performance’ as reflected in her e-PAS for the 2009-2010 cycle. In addition to the filing of a rebuttal request with the competent authority, the Applicant filed a request for suspension of action before the Tribunal, arguing that the decision was unfair and biased. She further indicated that the rebuttal process for the 2009-2010 e-PAS was still pending and that the e-PAS for the 2010-2011 cycle had not yet been finalized.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part
Outcome Extra Text

Application for suspension of action was granted. The Tribunal decided that the suspension would remain in force up to 14 days following the notification of the conclusions of the Rebuttal Panel(s) to the Applicant.

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
Perrot-Maitre
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type