¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2020/163

UNDT/2020/163, Dieng

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the decision to abolish the post of Senior Child Protection Officer in Darfur, Sudan is not subject to judicial review. That aspect of the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that the Administration did not act unlawfully by not renewing the Applicant’s contract because the contract itself was clear that it was expiring on 31 December 2018. Fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to abolish his post and separate him from the Organization on grounds of non-renewal of his contract.

Legal Principle(s)

The General Assembly is the supreme law maker in the United Nations. Its decisions are legislative in nature. Considering the principle of separation of powers, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with those powers and therefore may not review its resolutions because they are not administrative decisions. The starting point when reviewing administrative decisions is the presumption that official functions have been regularly performed. This presumption is satisfied where management minimally shows that the staff member was given fair and adequate consideration. Once management satisfies this initial requirement, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show through clear and convincing evidence that in dealing with him, management did not give his case fair and adequate consideration.

Outcome
Dismissed on merits
Outcome Extra Text

The application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to successfully rebut the presumption of regularity in the decision to abolish his post and separate him from the Organization on grounds of non-renewal of his contract.

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