Judgment No. 3444
Decision
1. The ICC shall pay the complainant 8,000 euros damages.
2. The ICC shall pay the complainant 1,000 euros costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The Tribunal accepted the complainant's argument that he had not been provided with clear and valid reasons for not renewing his contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract
Considerations 3 and 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently stated that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires. Staff Rule 104.4(a) states that a contract ends on the expiration date stated in the letter of appointment. The complainant’s contract would have expired on 31 December 2011, but for the two additional months’ notice to comply with its internal practice to satisfy Staff Regulation 9.2. He does not challenge the reasonableness of the notice which he received.
The Tribunal has further consistently stated that the decision whether to extend or renew a fixed-term appointment lies within the discretion of the organization. This discretion is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of the discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was an abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 3299, under 6, 2861, under 83, and 2850, under 6). Notwithstanding this, where the abolition of an office by virtue of re-organization of a department or unit is proffered as the reason for the non-renewal of a contract, this must be done on objective grounds and not as a pretext for removing undesirable staff as that would be considered an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1231, under 26, and 2830, under 6, recently confirmed in Judgment 3353, under 13-16). The decision must also be taken by the competent authority (see, for example, Judgment 1273, under 8). Moreover, the Tribunal has consistently stated that notwithstanding the discretionary nature of such a decision, it must be taken for a valid reason that is given to the staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1154, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1154, 1231, 1273, 2830, 2850, 2861, 3299, 3353
Keywords
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract
|
