ąú˛úAV

UNDT/2020/217, Farhadi

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Whether the non-renewal decision is supported by the facts Although, as the Applicant’s advanced, there was no documentary evidence explicitly showing that funding for the Pacific Project was to end in June 2017, other than the Respondent’s assertion that the Pacific Project received no funding beyond 30 June 2017, the Tribunal found that there were enough elements that taken together supported the budgetary reason behind the non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment. The Tribunal noted, inter alia, that the Applicant and other ITC Officials were fully aware in February 2017 that the Donor Country was considering not continuing to fund the project beyond June 2017. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s claims concerning the funds for the project failed. Whether the non-renewal is motivated by bias and/or improper motive The Applicant alleged that actions, decisions, and the general behaviour of the decisionmaker exhibited clear signs of bias towards him. In this connection, the Applicant referred to being formally removed from different projects. However, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence showing that changes in the Applicant’s functions were ill-motivated. Misappropriation of funds The Applicant argued that the post he encumbered was fully funded by the Donor Country through funds earmarked for the Pacific Project. Pointing out to the fact that he was called to assist in other projects, representing approximately 40% of his functions, he then asserts that ITC used part of the Pacific Project funds for other projects without the donor’s approval. The Tribunal considered that the Applicant’s contention was not only unconvincing but, also, if it were to be entertained would amount to a serious accusation in which he was complicit. Indeed, as he was responsible for managing the Pacific Project, it fell upon him to raise any mishandling of funds. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s allegation was unsubstantiated. “Détournement de procédure”, circumvention of termination rules and failure to act fairly, justly and transparently The Applicant claimed that his fixed-term appointment should have been terminated and that ITC did not do so to avoid paying a termination indemnity, which constitutes, in his view, a détournement de procédure and a circumvention of “termination rules”. In parallel, the Applicant alleges that ITC did not act fairly, justly, and transparently. The Applicant was not able to show that the decision to employ him up to the end of his contract was not properly made based on the information available. Furthermore, the Applicant did not provide any evidence supporting having requested ITC to consider termination of his appointment. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal found that there was no ground to question the managerial decision to keep the Applicant employed at least until the expiration of his fixed-term appointment. It also found that the Applicant’s allegation of rules’ circumvention was unsubstantiated. Abuse of authority The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s claims of abuse of authority were not supported.ated

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contests the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment beyond its expiration date of 30 June 2017.

Legal Principle(s)

Fixed-term appointments do not carry an expectation of renewal. Separation as a result of the expiration of a fixed-term appointment takes place automatically, without prior notice, on the expiration date specified in the letter of appointment (Agha 2019-UNAT916). A decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment can be challenged on the grounds that the Administration has not acted fairly, justly, or transparently with the staff member or was motivated by bias, prejudice, or improper motive. It is an applicant’s burden to prove such factors played a role in the contested administrative decision.

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