Non-renewal of contract (384,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Non-renewal of contract
Total judgments found: 320
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
Judgment 4809
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.
Consideration 10
Extract:
It is true that, under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision not to renew an official’s contract of employment must, even if it is a matter for the competent authority’s discretion, be based on valid reasons that must be communicated to the staff member concerned (see, for example, Judgments 3914, considerations 14, 15 and 18, 2708, consideration 12, and 1273, consideration 8).
However, this case law does not apply to external collaboration contracts, which are not contracts appointing officials. It is plain from the preceding consideration that the contract to which the non-renewal decision applied – which was, by definition, the last contract previously concluded – should be regarded, unlike the earlier contracts, as an external collaboration contract.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1273, 2708, 3914
Keywords:
external collaborator; non official; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4741
137th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal already recalled in Judgment 1734, consideration 3, with regard to Staff Rule VI 1.02, the very provision on which this dispute turns, emphasising the following:
“VI 1.02 is quite plain. An internal appeal being ruled out, [the complainant] should have thought of filing a complaint against non-renewal. If he could not understand the article on his own, he was free to get advice.”
It follows that, under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, since the complainant did not file her complaint within 90 days of the Organisation’s decision not to renew or extend her fixed-term contract, it is also irreceivable from that standpoint. The Tribunal has recalled on many occasions that, “[w]ith respect to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal’s case law requires strict adherence to the ninety-day time limit on the grounds that time limits are an objective matter of fact and that strict adherence is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions” (see Judgments 4354, consideration 7, 3947, consideration 5, and 3559, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 3559, 3947, 4354
Keywords:
interpretation; interpretation of rules; non-renewal of contract; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4678
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to extend his fixed-term contract due to unsatisfactory performance and to withhold his within-grade salary increment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its well-established case law regarding decisions concerning staff performance appraisals and renewal of fixed-term appointments. Organizations have wide discretion in taking such decisions, which are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgment 4170, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein). Where the reason for not renewing a contract is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of a staff member, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of her or his service, the organization can base its decision only on an assessment carried out in compliance with established rules (see, in particular, Judgment 2991, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein). This presupposes that the person in question has been informed in advance of what is expected of her or him, in particular by the communication of a precise description of the objectives set (see Judgment 3148, consideration 25).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2991, 3148, 4170
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance; role of the tribunal; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 4666
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his negative performance assessment and the termination of his fixed-term appointment for unsatisfactory service.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls first of all that, under its settled case law, the assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement and it cannot substitute its own opinion for the assessment made by the competent bodies of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will interfere only if a decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of law or of fact, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4543, consideration 4, 4169, consideration 7, 4010, consideration 5, 3268, consideration 9, and 3039, consideration 7).
An examination of a staff member’s assessment report before taking any decision not to renew that person’s contract on the basis of unsatisfactory performance is a fundamental obligation, non-compliance with which constitutes a procedural flaw that has the effect of an essential fact being overlooked (see, in particular, Judgments 2992, consideration 18, 2096, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2992, 3039, 3268, 4010, 4169, 4543
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 4654
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his employment contract.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he decision to separate the complainant from service was taken by WIPO on the grounds that, in its view, most of the requirements which the complainant’s employment had met had gradually disappeared, so there was no reason to renew his contract. While, as the Organization correctly observes, staff members with temporary appointments do not hold budget posts, the Tribunal considers that the disappearance of the functions performed by the holder of such an appointment is still an abolition of post within the meaning of the applicable case law, in any event in the case of functions that have been performed on a continuous basis. It follows that, although WIPO was not under an obligation to redeploy the complainant, it was nevertheless required, in view of the length of his employment relationship with the Organization, to explore with him other employment options prior to his separation, even though the measure at issue was not a termination of a current appointment (see, for comparable situations, Judgments 3159, consideration 20, and 2902, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3159
Keywords:
abolition of post; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reassignment; reclassification; separation from service;
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that the decision not to renew his appointment is unlawful because proper notice and reasons were not given for the decision to abolish his post, on which the non-renewal decision must necessarily have been based.
However, while it is true that the Tribunal’s case law requires that a decision to abolish a post satisfy these conditions (see in particular Judgment 3041, consideration 8), they were indeed satisfied in this case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041
Keywords:
motivation; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; late appeal; non-renewal of contract; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Consideration 16
Extract:
It must be recalled that the Tribunal has consistently held that a decision not to renew the appointment of a staff member of an international organisation lies within the discretion of its executive head and is therefore subject to only limited review. It may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4172, consideration 5, 2148, consideration 23, and 1052, consideration 4).
Under Staff Regulation 4.16(e), “[n]o initial temporary appointment or any extension thereof shall carry with it any expectancy of, nor imply any right to, further extension”. Thus, while a staff member employed under a temporary appointment is not entitled to have her or his contract renewed upon expiry, the fact remains that, under the Tribunal’s case law applicable to contractual relationships generally, a decision not to renew such a contract must be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones (see, in particular, Judgments 4495, consideration 15, 3769, consideration 7, 3353, consideration 15, and 1128, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1052, 1128, 2148, 3353, 3769, 4172, 4495
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4621
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her short-term appointment and complains that she was not able to exercise her right to an effective internal appeal in its regard.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; non-renewal of contract; right of appeal;
Judgment 4603
135th Session, 2023
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment on account of his unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Consistent case law has it that a decision not to extend or renew a fixed-term appointment is discretionary and may be set aside only on limited grounds. Where the reason given for the non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance, the decision can be successfully impugned if it is fundamentally flawed, for example, by procedural defects, a failure to take account of some essential fact, abuse or misuse of authority, or if it was based on an error of fact or of law (see Judgment 3743, under 2). The Tribunal has also consistently held that “an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance” (see Judgment 3932, under 21). The Tribunal has also stated that if the reason given for the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person’s work carried out in compliance with previously established rules and that allied to this is an obligation to afford an opportunity to improve (see Judgment 4289, under 7, and the case law cited therein) and that an international organization must comply with its own procedures in relation to performance appraisals (see, for example, Judgment 3150, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3150, 3743, 3932, 4289
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4588
135th Session, 2023
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation;
Judgment 4587
135th Session, 2023
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation;
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
[I]t is worth recalling that the case law of the Tribunal has often reiterated that an employee on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires (see, for example, Judgments 4462, consideration 18, 3586, consideration 6, and 3448, consideration 7), and that the Tribunal’s scope of review is limited when an organization decides not to extend or renew a fixed-term appointment (see Judgment 3948, consideration 2, and the case law cited therein).
The claims of the complainant for the payment of termination indemnities, which rely on the provisions of Staff Regulation 9.1.2 that apply in situations of termination of an appointment as opposed to non-renewal of a fixed-term contract, must consequently be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3448, 3586, 3948, 4462
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; terminal entitlements;
Judgment 4545
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4518
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-appointment to a fixed-term position and the non-renewal of his short-term contract, as well as the organisation’s refusal to conduct an investigation into the allegations of harassment made against him which, according to him, form the basis of the non-appointment and non-renewal decisions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; non-renewal of contract; selection procedure; short-term;
Judgment 4513
134th Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to convert his appointment as a graduate when it expired and to terminate it.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision not to renew a fixed-term contract is a discretionary decision, but if the decision rests on poor performance, the assessment of that performance has to be made in accordance with the rules established for that purpose; this is allied with an obligation to afford an opportunity to improve (see, in particular, Judgment 4289, under 7, and the case law cited therein). These principles are also applicable when, as in the present case, a decision is to be taken on whether to convert a graduate appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period or a limited period.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4289
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract; performance; short-term;
Judgment 4507
134th Session, 2022
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; senior official;
Consideration 5
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that an organisation enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal will respect the organisation’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff. However, the exercise of such discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set the decision aside if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see Judgments 3948, consideration 2, 4062, consideration 6, 4146, consideration 3, 4231, consideration 3, and 4363, consideration 10).
These grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated that an employee who is in the service of an international organisation on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contain a similar provision (see Judgments 3444, consideration 3, 3586, consideration 6, and 4218, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3444, 3586, 3948, 4062, 4146, 4218, 4231, 4363
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4505
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; probationary period;
Judgment 4503
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment upon its expiry.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; senior official;
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff. However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set aside the decision if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see Judgments 3948, consideration 2, 4062, consideration 6, 4146, consideration 3, 4231, consideration 3, 4363, consideration 10).
These grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, consideration 3, for example, 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 and the complainant’s terms of appointment contain a similar provision (see Judgments 3586, consideration 6, and 4218, consideration 2).
Even though an organization is generally under no obligation to extend a fixed-term contract or to reassign someone whose fixed-term contract is expiring, unless it is specifically provided by a provision in the staff rules or regulations, the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 1128, consideration 2, 1154, consideration 4, 1983, consideration 6, 2406, consideration 14, 3353, consideration 15, 3582, consideration 9, 3586, consideration 10, 3626, consideration 12, and 3769, consideration 7).
An international organization is under an obligation to consider whether or not it is in its interests to renew a contract and to make a decision accordingly: though such a decision is discretionary, it cannot be arbitrary or irrational; there must be a good reason for it and the reason must be given (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 1154, 1983, 2406, 3353, 3444, 3582, 3586, 3626, 3769, 3948, 4062, 4146, 4218, 4231, 4363
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Organization complied with its duty of care. The complainant was given five months’ notice of the non-renewal of her contract; the expiry of the contract occurred at the contractually agreed time, and the complainant received reasons for the non-renewal, orally and in writing (see Judgment 4321, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4321
Keywords:
duty of care; fixed-term; motivation; motivation of final decision; non-renewal of contract; notice;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he restructuring of the [Senior Management Team] and the consequent non-renewal of the complainant’s appointment was a discretionary decision, as part of a policy to reform and restructure the management of the Organization, lawfully taken by the Director-General, within her authority. It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organization may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organization and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or of law or whether they constitute abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of decisions relating to it and it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4004, consideration 2, 4139, consideration 2, 4180, consideration 3, 4405, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4004, 4139, 4180, 4405
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation; role of the tribunal; senior official;
Judgment 4501
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment beyond its expiry date while she was on sick leave.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; sick leave;
Judgment 4495
134th Session, 2022
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment upon its expiry.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The circumstances of this case are somewhat unusual. It is not a case in which the question of whether a senior official’s contract should be renewed or extended was being addressed against a background of stability in the most senior ranks of the organisation with settled policies including HR policies. In the present case there was a new Executive Director appointed shortly before a decision had to be made about the extension of the complainant’s contract. He was plainly focused on, amongst other things, the functioning of the HR Unit and its Head as part of his vision for the future of the organisation informed by external advice. In this respect, the answer to the question of whether the complainant’s contract should be renewed could reasonably be influenced by that vision and the views of the new Executive Director about how it might best be achieved, including his assessment of the suitability of the complainant informed by advice he had received. A substantial part of the complainant’s case is, in substance, that she was qualified to continue in the role as Head of HR even in the face of the new vision (while challenging whether in truth it was new) including demonstrating that she had the qualifications, skills and experience required of the position as set out in a vacancy notice […]. But this line of argument and analysis effectively invites the Tribunal to enter the territory which it has eschewed, namely substituting its own assessment for that of the organisation.
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal; senior official;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The obligation to give reasons for a non-renewal have been variously described as providing “valid reasons” (see Judgment 3769, consideration 7), and not “arbitrary or irrational” reasons (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2). While the reasons given in this case may be contestable, they were not of a character to sustain a conclusion they were, for example, not valid or arbitrary or irrational. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3586, consideration 6: “the Tribunal’s scope of review in a case such as this is limited. Firm and consistent precedent has it that an organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to extend a fixed-term appointment. The exercise of such discretion is subject to limited review because the Tribunal respects an organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 1349, under 11). The Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. A decision in the exercise of this discretion may only be quashed or set aside for unlawfulness or illegality in the sense that it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; or if it is based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked; or if there was an abuse or misuse 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).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 1349, 2850, 2861, 3299, 3586, 3769
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; motivation; motivation of final decision; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4490
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of damages awarded for the unlawful decision not to renew her fixed-term contract as a Principal Director and to reinstate her in a lower-level post instead.
Considerations 10-12
Extract:
The Appeals Committee was correct in approaching the assessment of damages for the unlawful non-renewal decision as ultimately requiring an assessment of what were the prospects that the contract would, at its expiry, be renewed by lawful decision in any event and, viewed from that perspective, assessing the financial consequences to the complainant in losing the opportunity to have the contract renewed (see, for example, Judgments 2867, consideration 18, 4062, consideration 17, and 4170, consideration 15). […]
If a decision is made not to renew a fixed-term contract but the decision was unlawful then an assessment must be made of lost future income with the organisation (adjusted and offset by any future income from other employment) which will involve an assessment of what the prospects were of the contract being renewed and its duration.
However, the position would, at least in a case such as the present, be no different in substance if the complainant’s grievance had initially been and had remained an allegation of constructive dismissal. In a case of unlawful dismissal, if reinstatement is not ordered (in this case not sought), then the material damages are the lost future income in the position with the organisation adjusted by an assessment of whether the staff member would have remained in that position and, if not, also adjusted by future income from other employment (see Judgment 4234, consideration 10). This assessment can also be approached compendiously by assessing the value of the lost opportunity to remain in employment (see, for example, Judgment 4305, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2867, 4062, 4170, 4234, 4305
Keywords:
constructive dismissal; loss of opportunity; material injury; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 18
Extract:
The complainant’s claim to moral damages is not dependent on the complainant proving harassment, as the Appeals Committee believed. It is tolerably clear from the terms of the complainant’s letter of resignation of 29 April 2014 and the contemporaneous medical certificate from her treating physician (the contents of neither, as they related to the effect of events on the complainant, were challenged by the EPO) that the decision to abolish her post and not to renew her Principal Director contract had a serious and negative effect on the complainant’s health and well-being culminating in her resignation.
Keywords:
moral injury; non-renewal of contract; resignation;
Judgment 4462
133rd Session, 2022
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s decision of 2 May 2019 not to modify his performance evaluation report for 2017 and not to renew his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 18
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal reiterates that, under its case law, an employee who is in the service of an international organisation on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires (see, for example, Judgment 3444, consideration 3). It is likewise well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that “an organisation has a wide discretion in deciding whether to renew a fixed-term appointment and its right to refuse to renew can be based on unsatisfactory performance”. It follows that “such a discretionary decision can be successfully impugned [only] if it is fatally flawed by, for example, procedural defects, a failure to take account of some essential fact, abuse or misuse of authority, or if it was based on an error of fact or of law” (see Judgments 1262, consideration 4, 3586, consideration 6, 3679, consideration 10, 3743, consideration 2, and 3932, consideration 21).
The Tribunal has also consistently held that “an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance” (see Judgment 3252, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein, Judgment 3932, consideration 21, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 4289, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 3252, 3444, 3586, 3679, 3743, 3932, 3932, 4289
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 4416
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
|
