¹ú²úAV

Receivability The Applicant’s appointment was extended beyond its expiration date to allow her to exhaust her medical leave entitlements. The Applicant’s entitlements, had her contract been extended, would be calculated on a different scale from that applied during her sick leave. Moreover, should the contested decision be found unlawful, the Applicant could be entitled to receive compensation for the harm caused by the unlawful decision under art. 10.5(b) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute regardless of any entitlements she may have benefited from during her sick leave. The application cannot be deemed moot as per Kallon 2017-UNAT-742 (paras. 44-45). The calculation of any compensation for remedy is a matter of merits, not receivability. The application does not fall within the meaning of Belkhabbaz 2018-UNAT-895 (para. 40). Merits The Applicant alleges that the decision was the result of protracted harassment but has not contested any of the alleged instances of harassment, nor does she bring evidence of a causal link between any such alleged harassment and the contested decision. The reason provided by the Respondent for the non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment – the abolition of her post following the closure of the mission – is borne out by the facts in evidence and there is no evidence of ulterior motive. Given that the Applicant held a fixed-term appointment that expired, the Administration had no obligation to make efforts to retain her.