����AV

It is not disputed by either party that the Applicant was not employed by the Organization during the one week period between the curtailment, requested by himself, of his employment with UNECA and his appointment at UNHQ. Furthermore, the Applicant “does not seek to challenge the 2005 decision creating the break in service, but, [in light of the Tribunal’s decision in Gomez], the later decision not to consider him eligible for conversion to permanent appointment on the basis of that earlier decision”. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant was ineligible for consideration for conversion to permanent appointment as the break in service resulted in him not having acquired five years of continuous service on a fixed-term appointment. he Applicant requests that he be considered for conversion to a permanent appointment or that his contract “be converted to a continuing contract”. The UNDT found that the decision that the Applicant was not eligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment was lawful.