����AV

Notification of an administrative decision: Time limits exist in the system of administration of justice for reasons of certainty and the expeditious disposal of disputes. The expiry of the time limit set out in staff rule 11.2(c) extinguishes a staff member’s right to submit a request for management evaluation, and therefore to challenge a decision before the Dispute Tribunal.In a case such as the present one, in which notification of a decision has been provided in writing after the Applicant was verbally informed of the decision, the Tribunal considers that the correct approach is to rely on the date of this written notification for the calculation of the time limit for requesting management evaluation (see Chollet UNDT/2015/105, para. 40, where a similar approach was taken). In the circumstances, and considering the facts of this case, I hold that where there is written notification of a decision, receipt of which is either expressly acknowledged by the Applicant or not denied by Applicant and it is not a reiteration of a previous written decision, this will be the date of notification for the purpose of the time limit for requesting management evaluation, as a written decision is formal and usually clear and final. This allows both parties in a case to proceed with certainty.There was no legitimate expectation of renewal of his fixed-term appointment based on an alleged express promiseIn order for a staff member’s claim of legitimate expectation of a renewal of appointment to be sustained, “it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case” (Abdalla 2011-UNAT-138, para. 24; Munir 2015-UNAT-522, para. 24). The Tribunal found that, viewing the Applicant’s case in the light most favorable to his position, no evidence of an express promise or firm commitment in writing were made in this case.The reason given for the decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment was supported by the factsThe Tribunal relied on Kacan 2015-UNAT-582 to find that, in the absence of an express promise of renewal of appointment, and having failed to establish improper motives or discrimination, the decision not to renew a staff member’s fixed-term appointment was a legitimate exercise of the Administration’s discretion, based on the operational realities of the office concerned, and the fact that the staff member’s services were no longer necessary.There was insufficient evidence that the contested decision was motivated by bias, prejudice, discrimination or other extraneous considerationsThe Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that the non-renewal of his appointment was motived by bias, prejudice, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations in that comments made in his performance appraisal by the USG/DGACM were not sufficient to establish an improper motive, nor were the allegations regarding the delay in creating a work plan for the Applicant.