Judgment No. 404
Decision
THE COMPLAINTS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Director-General stated that he would inquire into the truth of the alleged assurances given to the complainant. "That was a conciliatory gesture, and it meant neither the continuation of her earlier appeal nor the introduction of a new one. [...] Since the action he intended was informal, [the Director-General] was under no duty to give the complainant an opportunity to comment on the outcome. That she was not allowed to give evidence in the course of the inquiry therefore constituted no breach of the right to a hearing."
Keywords
inquiry; right to reply; contract; promise; executive head; investigation
Consideration 2
Extract:
"There was one consideration which alone warranted the non-renewal of [the complainant's] appointment. That was the organisation's straitened financial circumstances [...] which required a reduction in staff. It was no abuse of authority for the Director-General to decide that, of those whose appointment the organisation was considering terminating, the choice should fall on the complainant: she held a fixed-term appointment and had received less satisfactory performance reports than other members of the staff."
Keywords
grounds; contract; fixed-term; budgetary reasons; non-renewal of contract; staff reduction; unsatisfactory service
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant maintains that the organisation was remiss in facilitating her transfer to some other international organisation. Her plea can succeed only if the organisation was under a duty to find for her or help her to find other employment. It was not".
Keywords
organisation's duties; transfer; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; duty of care
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant objects to the organisation's refusal to disclose certain documents. But she fails to indicate what bearing the allegedly withheld documents may have had on the decisions she impugns, and her plea therefore fails."
Keywords
decision; lack of injury; complainant; disclosure of evidence; effect; request by a party
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant was aware of the existence and the conclusion of the report mentioned in the minutes. She should have asked for its disclosure shortly after learning of its existence and, if necessary, appealed to the Tribunal. "Being herself to blame for being ignorant of its contents, she cannot, long after it was written, argue on the grounds of such ignorance that all the decisions affecting her are null and void. Her attitude implies that she did not wish to consult the minute. In other words she surrendered her right to give her views."
Keywords
complainant; time bar; disclosure of evidence; request by a party
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organisation argues that the second decision under challenge merely upheld the former, that the time limit must therefore be calculated from the date of the first decision (3 October). "In fact the decision of 18 December does not merely confirm the earlier one: it rejects the complainant's application for referral of her case to the Joint Committee and thus bars resort to an internal means of redress. Whether the time limit should run from 3 October or 18 December is therefore a matter of some doubt. It may remain unsettled [...] since the complainant's pleas are manifestly without substance."
Keywords
decision; confirmatory decision; organisation; internal appeal; date of notification; start of time limit; refusal
Consideration 11
Extract:
In her complaint the complainant states that she asked for a certificate of service; she speaks of this document in her rejoinder and makes a claim in regard to it. She also refers to it in her additional memorandum. However, the certificate is not mentioned in any of the claims for relief in her three (joined) complaints. "It is only on the matter of those claims that the Tribunal is required to pass judgment and it will therefore not give any decision on the text of the certificate asked for."
Keywords
new claim; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder
Consideration 1(D)
Extract:
No provision provides for converting an appointment of indeterminate duration into a fixed-term one. "There is neither any general principle of law nor any provision of the Staff Regulations nor any term of her contract of appointment which precludes such a change of status."
Keywords
amendment to the rules; no provision; contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; permanent appointment
| 
