Â鶹´«Ã½

The applicant did not have a legitimate expectancy of renewal. No express promise by the Administration could be found. Had there been one, the letters of appointment signed by the applicant explicitly state that fixed-term appointments do not carry any expectancy of renewal. No promise could override the clear words of the letters of appointment signed subsequently. It cannot be stated that the non-renewal decision was based on improper motives or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion. The Organization was not bound to give any justification for not extending the applicant’s fixed-term...

The Tribunal found that both the decision to remove the applicant from her post and the decision to place her on SLWFP constituted a proper exercise of the Secretary-General’s discretion pursuant to former staff regulation 1.2 (c) and former staff rule 105.2 (a), respectively. However, the Tribunal also considered that keeping the applicant on SLWFP for four years and four months breached staff rule 105.2 (a), as it did not serve the interests of the Organization. The Tribunal further found that this breach had caused the applicant moral injury for which she should be compensated. Disguised...

The Tribunal found that the decision to reassign the Applicant was an unlawful exercise or the Administration’s discretion because, although the decision was based on her alleged poor performance, the Applicant’s performance had never been evaluated in accordance with the established procedures. The subsequent decision not to renew her contract was flawed for the same reason. Whilst the official reason given was that the Applicant did not accept the post offered or apply for another one, the Tribunal found that the non-renewal decision was motivated by the Applicant’s supervisors’ assessment...

The Tribunal considers that the Administration did not err in finding that her claims had been adequately addressed and that she had not suffered harassment. However, it failed in its duty to ensure a work environment that protects the physical and psychological integrity of staff. It awards the Applicant two months’ net base salary for moral damage plus half a month for excessive delay in the appeal process. Duty to take prompt action to deal with harassment claims: At the material time, the Administration was bound by a duty to take prompt action and address harassment claims. In the instant...

The Respondent was required to act in the best interests of the Organization, when reassigning the Applicant, and it was principally for the Respondent as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, pursuant to art. 97 of the United Nations Charter, to define what those interests were in the context of the administration of the Organization Outcome: For respondent (merits).