Non-renewal of contract (384,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Non-renewal of contract
Total judgments found: 341
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 | next >
Judgment 5153
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 16
Extract:
“Without descending into detail, the normative legal framework governing temporary appointments in WHO, and the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 4916, consideration 8), make it quite clear that there can be no expectation of appointment to a further temporary contract after the expiry of an existing one. Nonetheless, he lost the valuable opportunity to have his contract extended and is, accordingly, entitled to material damages equivalent to six months of net salary at the grade NO-C, step 2 level.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4916
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material damages; material injury; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 17
Extract:
“The complainant also seeks moral damages […] The unsupported characterization of the complainant’s conduct as misconduct and a breach of integrity caused him obvious moral injury for which he is entitled to moral damages (see Judgment 4819, consideration 17). He seeks 10,000 United States dollars. This amount is appropriate in the circumstances.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4819
Keywords:
misconduct; moral damages; moral injury; motivation; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 4
Extract:
“[I]t is desirable to briefly discuss the Tribunal’s case law concerning the renewal of temporary contacts. A convenient summary of the overarching principles is found in Judgment 4877, consideration 2: ‘It must be recalled that the Tribunal has consistently held that the 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 4654, consideration 16, 4172, consideration 5, 2148, consideration 23, or 1052, consideration 4). That is, a fortiori, the situation in a case such as this where the dispute concerns the non-renewal of a temporary appointment which expressly stated that the appointee was not guaranteed any renewal or conversion of his contract into any other type of contract’[…]”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1052, 2148, 4172, 4654, 4877
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Considerations 5 and 15
Extract:
“[I]t is necessary for the decision not to renew to be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones. Not only has this been recently affirmed in Judgment 4877, but was clearly expressed in Judgment 4654, consideration 16: ‘[W]hile 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).’ […] Moreover, a person whose temporary appointment is not renewed, is entitled to the reasons why (see Judgment 3838, consideration 7) […] The Tribunal is satisfied that the reasons given in the present case […] were at least arbitrary, if not irrational as well […]Given […] the justification advanced […], the conclusion is open to the Tribunal that his decision that the complainant’s temporary contract would not be renewed was arbitrary. This also means that the discretion was exercised in an arbitrary manner (see Judgment 4391, consideration 10). Also, the Tribunal made clear in Judgment 3948, consideration 2, that the reason for the non-renewal of a contract ‘must be a valid one and not one that was given to conveniently get rid of a staff member’.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 3353, 3769, 3838, 3948, 4391, 4495, 4654, 4877
Keywords:
motivation; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 5144
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“Under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to abolish a post and the consequent decision to terminate the appointment of the holder of that post, in the event that she or he is not reassigned, are legally separate (see, for example, Judgments 4369, consideration 5, and 3905, consideration 15). However, the Tribunal may examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of post in a challenge to the subsequent termination of a staff member’s employment, even if no legal challenge was made, within time or at all, to the abolition of the post itself (see Judgments 3933, consideration 8, and 3172, consideration 16), for the limited purpose of, for example, ascertaining whether there has been an abuse of authority which entails consideration of whether the decision was taken for an improper purpose. Moreover, it is open to a complainant to impugn a redeployment process, if a failure to redeploy him has led to the termination of his employment (see, for example, Judgment 3933, consideration 8).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3172, 3905, 3933, 4369
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; administrative decision; non-renewal of contract; reassignment; termination of employment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 14
Extract:
“Regarding the complainant’s claim for reinstatement, under the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, the reinstatement of a staff member who held a fixed-term contract is ordered only in exceptional cases (see, for example, Judgments 4405, consideration 8, 4063, consideration 11, 3353, consideration 35, and 1317, consideration 38).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317, 3353, 4063, 4405
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reinstatement;
Consideration 6
Extract:
“[A]ccording to its consistent case law, the wide discretion an international organization enjoys in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment 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 (see, for example, Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, this discretion is not unfettered, and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, if it rested on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked, if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4916, consideration 4, and 4495, consideration 15). Moreover, the case law also requires that 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 4917, consideration 12, 4503, consideration 7, and 3769, consideration 7).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3769, 4495, 4503, 4916, 4917
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; fixed-term; motivation; non-renewal of contract; notice; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5132
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she encumbered and not to renew her fixed-term contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; budgetary reasons; complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation;
Judgment 5130
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract further to the abolition of his position due to budgetary constraints.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; budgetary reasons; complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, according to its consistent case law, the wide discretion an international organization enjoys in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment 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 (see, for example, Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, this discretion is not unfettered, and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision if it was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, if it was based on an error of fact or of law, if some essential fact was overlooked, if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4503
Keywords:
career; decision; fixed-term; judicial review; limits; non-renewal of contract; review of administrative decision;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has further held that its role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited (see, for example, Judgments 4953, consideration 4, 4834, consideration 2, and 3367, consideration 11). As explained in Judgment 3163, consideration 8, and reiterated in Judgments 4953, consideration 23, and 4834, consideration 9, it is necessary for the complainant to establish that “the exercise of the discretionary power miscarried because the decision-maker was led into error by proceeding on a misunderstanding about what the material facts were”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3163, 3367, 4834, 4953
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; financial considerations; fixed-term; judicial review; limits; material error; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; review of administrative decision;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s position was not funded from a stable, regular budget line but from temporary funds. IOM retained the discretionary power to adjust allocations as operational needs required and was under no obligation to maintain a budget allocation that was no longer in the best interest of the Organization.
Keywords:
decision; discretion; executive head; financial considerations; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; organisation's interest;
Consideration 12
Extract:
It is well-established case law that an organisation has a duty to explore possible options or to make reasonable efforts for the reassignment of a staff member whose post has been abolished (see, for example, Judgments 4097, consideration 9, and 2902, consideration 14). In consideration 16 of Judgment 3908, the Tribunal stated that, while it has long recognized the right of an international organization to abolish positions, which will imperil the continuing employment of the occupants of those abolished positions, a concomitant of that right is an obligation to deal fairly with the staff who occupy those abolished positions. This obligation extends to finding, if they exist, other positions within the organization for which those staff have the experience and qualifications.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3908, 4097
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; financial considerations; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]t was stated in Judgment 4935, consideration 21:
“Historically, the Tribunal generally considered the extent of an organization’s duty to reassign staff members whose positions were abolished mainly in relation to the type of contract they held, the nature of the post and/or the role to which they were assigned, their length of service with the organization, and recognized a greater duty in respect of staff who held permanent positions (see, for example, Judgment 3754, consideration 16). Nonetheless, in consideration 10 of Judgment 4097, the Tribunal stated that it does not follow that other classes of staff of differing status should be afforded no protection by principles it has developed in circumstances where their post is abolished and attempts are being made to reassign them.”
The Tribunal is cognizant of the nature of the IOM’s funding structure as a project-based organization. This is significant, among other things, in that the employment of a large number of staff members is linked to the duration of the specific projects for which they are engaged (see Judgment 4935, consideration 23).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3754, 4097, 4935
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; financial considerations; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; project personnel; reassignment;
Judgment 5113
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) for the period from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2022 and the decision not to renew his appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
“[I]n terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. […] ‘[…] ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it 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 [...].’” […] in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.”
The Tribunal finds that the organisation breached its duty of care in its treatment of the complainant. […]
There is no evidence that the concerns regarding the complainant’s performance were brought to his attention at any time prior to […], when the completed PAR was forwarded to him. The decision not to renew his appointment was taken just three weeks later. As a result, he was not afforded an opportunity to address or rectify the alleged shortcomings in his performance, nor was he granted a reasonable period within which any improvement could have been expected to occur.”
Keywords:
breach; due process; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract; performance; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 10
Extract:
“[T]he reinstatement of an official on a fixed-term contract is ordered only in exceptional cases […]. In the present case, having also regard to the time that has elapsed since the complainant’s separation from the organisation, the Tribunal considers that reinstatement would not be appropriate. However, as a result of the unlawful decision not to renew his appointment, the complainant lost a valuable opportunity to pursue his employment with the organisation, in respect of which he is entitled to an award of material damages. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal assesses those damages in the amount of 60,000 euros. The complainant is also entitled to moral damages for the breach of the organisation’s duty of care, which the Tribunal assesses at 15,000 euros.”
Keywords:
duty of care; fixed-term; loss of opportunity; material damages; moral damages; non-renewal of contract; reinstatement;
Judgment 5111
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“[A]n international organization enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment which 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 such a decision if taken without authority; if in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; if the decision rested on an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence […]. The Tribunal’s role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited […].
[…] [A]n international organization has the duty to provide valid reasons for its non-renewal decision […]: ‘[…] a non-renewal decision must also be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones […]. Those reasons must also be communicated to the staff member concerned […], although they need not necessarily appear in the decision itself […].’
It is a firm principle established by the Tribunal’s case law that the reason not to extend a fixed-term contract must be a valid one and not one that was given to conveniently get rid of a staff member […].”
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 7
Extract:
“[A]n organisation may not decide to terminate or not renew a contract for unsatisfactory performance unless it has properly followed its appraisal procedures and given the staff member a fair opportunity to improve […]. However, in the present case, the non-renewal was not based on unsatisfactory performance but rather on alleged budgetary constraints. Therefore, although the appraisal process was manifestly flawed, such irregularities do not render the non-renewal decision unlawful and do not warrant the setting aside of the decision insofar as it was not performance-related.”
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance; performance evaluation; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 14
Extract:
“[T]he complainant requests reinstatement or, alternatively, material damages […]. The Tribunal recalls that, according to its consistent case law, a temporary appointment carries no expectation of renewal […]. Even if the reasons for non-renewal had not been flawed, there would have been no guarantee that the complainant’s contract would have been renewed. His request for reinstatement is therefore rejected. However, because the complainant lost a valuable opportunity to have his contract renewed due to the defects established above, he is entitled to material damages to compensate for that loss of opportunity, which the Tribunal assesses at a lump sum of 30,000 euros.”
Keywords:
duty of care; fixed-term; loss of opportunity; material damages; moral damages; non-renewal of contract; reinstatement;
Judgment 5101
141st Session, 2026
International Center for the Registration of Serials
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 2
Extract:
« [U]n fonctionnaire titulaire d’un [contrat de durée déterminée] ne peut pas se prévaloir d’un droit à son renouvellement (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4587, au considérant 19, et 3448, au considérant 7). La décision de ne pas renouveler le contrat d’engagement d’un fonctionnaire d’une organisation internationale relève du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peut faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint de la part du Tribunal. Elle ne peut être annulée que si elle émane d’un organe incompétent, si elle viole une règle de forme ou de procédure, si elle repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, si son auteur a omis de tenir compte de faits essentiels ou a tiré des pièces du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées, ou si elle est entachée de détournement de pouvoir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4877, au considérant 2, 4654, au considérant 16, 4172, au considérant 5, 2148, au considérant 23, ou 1052, au considérant 4). Par ailleurs, le rôle du Tribunal dans l’examen des décisions de non-renouvellement de contrats pour des raisons budgétaires est, par nature, limité (voir les jugements 4953, au considérant 4, 4834, au considérant 2, et 3367, au considérant 11). Il n’en reste pas moins que toute décision de non-renouvellement d’un contrat d’engagement de durée déterminée doit reposer sur des raisons objectives et valables (voir, notamment, le jugement 4654, au considérant 16).»
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; discretion; fixed-term; motivation; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 11
Extract:
«[L]a ou les raisons d’une décision de non-renouvellement d’un contrat d’engagement doivent être communiquées au fonctionnaire concerné, sans qu’il soit nécessaire que cette motivation figure dans la décision de non-renouvellement elle-même (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4877, au considérant 2, 4368, au considérant 15, 3914, au considérant 15, et 1750, au considérant 6), et ce, pour autant que la communication ultérieure de cette motivation puisse permettre au fonctionnaire concerné de se déterminer en conséquence quant à l’éventuel usage de son droit de recours (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4368, au considérant 15, 3914, au considérant 15, 3617, au considérant 5, 3117, au considérant 9, et 1817, au considérant 6).»
Keywords:
motivation; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 12
Extract:
« [D]es considérations d’ordre financier ou budgétaire peuvent constituer une raison suffisante, objective et valable, pour justifier le non-renouvellement d’un contrat d’engagement (voir, notamment, les jugements 3837, au considérant 10, et 1044, au considérant 3). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1044, 3837
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 12
Extract:
« [I]l n’appartient pas au Tribunal, dans le cadre du contrôle limité qui est le sien en la matière, de se substituer à l’appréciation qui a été faite par la Directrice et le Conseil d’administration concernant les restrictions budgétaires nécessitant le non-renouvellement du contrat d’engagement de la requérante […] il n’incombe pas au Tribunal, dans le cadre du contrôle limité qu’il est appelé à exercer en la matière, de substituer sa propre appréciation à celle de la Directrice en recherchant s’il n’y avait pas d’autres alternatives financières possibles au non-renouvellement du contrat d’engagement de la requérante afin de faire face aux difficultés budgétaires que rencontrait le Centre. »
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; competence of tribunal; discretion; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5100
141st Session, 2026
ASEAN+3 Macroeconomic Research Office
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to extend her contract for one year only.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; extension of contract; non-renewal of contract; performance; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 9
Extract:
“The complainant seeks material damages […]. The difficulty with this contention is that the complainant did not even serve the one year for which her appointment was extended. She decided to seek out and accept employment with another organisation after only 6 months of her one-year extension. The Tribunal finds, therefore, that the complainant has suffered no material injury. Her claim for compensation under this head is accordingly rejected.”
Keywords:
material damages; material injury; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 8
Extract:
“The complainant seeks moral damages […] for the repeated violation of her rights in the process of deciding about the reduction of her contract extension and moral damages […] for the organisation’s alleged breach of its duty of care. However, in a case such as the present it would be necessary for the complainant to demonstrate moral injury founding the award of moral damages. As the Tribunal has repeatedly held, moral damages flow from proof, provided by the complainant, of the moral injuries suffered, of the alleged unlawful act, and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury […]. [The complainant’s assertion] is an insufficiently firm foundation to award moral damages in the amount claimed […]. However, the complainant is entitled to a compensation for the manifest moral injury she suffered having regard to the stress undoubtedly caused by the unlawful decision to renew her contract for one year only. She is therefore entitled to 12,000 euros as moral damages.”
Keywords:
moral damages; moral injury; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4953
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recognizes the wide discretion an international organization enjoys under such provisions, whether contained in an international organization’s regulatory regime or in a staff member’s letter of appointment, in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment. The Tribunal respects an organization’s discretion to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff. However, the discretion is not unfettered but is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will normally set aside a decision not to renew or extend an appointment if taken without authority; in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; if the decision rested on an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 4503, consideration 7). The Tribunal’s role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited (see, for example, Judgments 4834, consideration 2, and 3367, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3367, 4503, 4834
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant’s argument that in violation of the adversarial principle the JAB did not obtain a copy of the OIOS report [into the investigation of her retaliation complaint] nor provided it to her for comment is […] inconsequential, since through the present complaint the complainant is not impugning the decision to close her retaliation complaint but the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment.
Keywords:
investigation report; non-renewal of contract; retaliation;
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant further refers to the Tribunal’s statement in considerations 19 and 20 of Judgment 3586 that “all relevant documents should have been disclosed [by the Organization in question] to [the internal appeal body], without its request, to enable it to thoroughly investigate the central question: whether funds were or would have been available or were ‘expected to be assured’ at the material time to fund the extension” of the contract of the complainant in that case. The complainant states that she provided evidence to the JAB that as of 12 June 2020, there was a balance of over 2 million euros in the IAEA’s budget to fund the HR and non-HR functions in her department and the latter should have produced to the JAB all the documents related to the allotment transfer in June 2020 and whether it was done in line with its Financial Regulations and Rules in order to determine, in effect, whether funds were available to continue to fund her position. She submits that the IAEA’s failure to produce the documents to her and to the JAB constituted a breach of due process. She cites the Tribunal statement in consideration 17 of Judgment 3586 that the organization in that case “breached due process by not disclosing all of the agreements and related information, which could have assisted the [internal appeal body] to have made a properly informed determination whether financial constraint was a valid reason for not extending [her] contract”. […] The foregoing submissions show that the complainant has failed to appreciate, first, that in Judgment 3586, the question of whether funds were “expected to be assured” was an enquiry dictated by a specific provision (Paragraph III.5.12 of WHO’s e-Manual) which is not applicable in the present case […]. In the second place, Judgment 3586 was not concerned with the non-extension of an appointment to a position funded by extra-budgetary contribution by a donor government wherein the IAEA was under no obligation to allocate funds from its regular budget to fund the position when the donor government withdrew its funding for it in the terms stated in consideration 9 of this judgment, which the Tribunal accepts, as did the JAB. […] Stated in another way, the essential question regarding this aspect of the third ground is not (as the complainant suggests) whether as of [the time of the non-renewal] sufficient funds remained in the Department’s budget to cover the complainant’s position […] The question is whether funds had been allocated by the donor government to continue to fund the complainant’s extra-budgetary post when its term expired […], and they were not. There was therefore no basis for the IAEA to disclose information concerning the question whether funds were or could have been made available from the IAEA’s regular budget or were ”expected to be assured” to continue to fund the complainant’s position. It was therefore unnecessary for the JAB to order the disclosure of the documents she seeks or for the IAEA to share them with the JAB without its request.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; budgetary reasons; disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeals body; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 23
Extract:
[R]egarding the complainant’s argument that her position could have been funded from other sources of funding, in Judgment 4834, consideration 9, quoting Judgment 3163, consideration 8, the Tribunal considered a contention that alleged lack of funding for the position of the complainant in that case was due to the diversion of funds for that position, and although funds could have been available, the organization chose for a dubious reason not to use them. The Tribunal stated the following, and that reasoning can be applied to the present case: “It is unnecessary to descend into greater detail about whether funds were or were not available to fund the complainant’s position beyond the beginning of 2010. That is because this Tribunal has set its face against assessing the exercise of a discretionary power, such as the power not to renew a fixed-term contract, unless it is demonstrated that the competent body acted on some wrong principle, breached procedural rules, overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see, for example, Judgments 1044, under 3, 1262, under 4, and 2975, under 15). The substance of the complainant’s case on this issue is that other decisions could have been made which would have resulted in funding being available for the position. The error of fact identified in the complainant’s submissions does not involve the identification of a material fact assumed by the decision-maker to exist, which did not exist. Rather, she identifies facts which would sustain a decision other than the decision actually made. To impugn the exercise of a discretionary decision-making power by reference to, and based on, the factual matrix in which the decision was made, a complainant must demonstrate something more than that other decisions might reasonably have been made on the known facts. It is necessary to establish that the exercise of the discretionary power miscarried because the decision-maker was led into error by proceeding on a misunderstanding about what the material facts were. As the complainant has failed to do so, this plea must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1044, 1262, 2975, 3163, 4834
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4940
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; promise; time bar;
Judgment 4939
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; promise; time bar;
Judgment 4938
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; promise; time bar;
Judgment 4919
139th Session, 2025
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her short-term contract, not to reclassify her position and to reduce her salary in December 2020.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; reclassification; short-term;
Judgment 4917
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-extension of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that Staff Rule 103.10(d) cited by the complainant does not contain an obligation for the Organization to reassign staff members on fixed-term contracts whose positions have been abolished. The Tribunal held that where the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is justified, the direct reassignment of the staff member to another adequate post, if it exists, is not mandatory (see Judgment 4841, consideration 6). In any event, the complainant recognized that assistance in her search for other employment options was provided by UNIDO prior to her separation. The complainant’s fifth plea is therefore unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4841
Keywords:
abolition of post; non-renewal of contract; reassignment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
UNIDO’s submission regarding the receivability needs to be addressed. In the complainant’s fourth plea, the complainant argues that the investigation into her retaliation complaint […] was flawed […] These arguments should be raised within the context of the challenge of the outcome of the complainant’s retaliation complaint post-dating the decision not to renew her appointment and are outside the scope of the present complaint, which focuses on the non-renewal decision.
Keywords:
investigation; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; retaliation;
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
In her third plea, the complainant argues that UNIDO’s refusal to share with the JAB the final investigation report into her retaliation complaint impeded the latter’s proper evaluation of her allegations of retaliation. A related argument advanced by the complainant is that she “should have been given the opportunity to comment on documents that would be considered and relied upon by [UNIDO] in the [non-renewal] decision”. UNIDO contends that the plea of breach of due process rights has no merit because the investigation report was completed several months after the [non-renewal] decision of 29 April 2021 and “played no role” in such decision. […] while it is true that the case law of the Tribunal states that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the authority bases its decision against her or him, in the present case the non-renewal decision dated 29 April 2021 was not based on the content of the investigation report, which was completed several months later, in October 2021. The impugned decision did not rely on the content of the investigation report either. The complainant’s third plea is therefore unfounded.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; investigation report; non-renewal of contract; retaliation;
Consideration 12
Extract:
It is pertinent to recall the Tribunal’s well-established case law concerning the non-renewal of fixed-term appointments. The case law has often reiterated that a staff member appointed on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract, when it expires (see, for example, Judgments 4587, consideration 19, 4462, consideration 18, 3586, consideration 6, and 3448, consideration 7). The non-renewal of a fixed-term contract may be lawfully justified by the abolition of the post in the context of a restructuring process, provided that the abolition of the post be based on objective and valid grounds, as the abolition of a post must not serve as a pretext for removing unwanted staff, which would constitute an abuse of authority (see Judgments 4841, consideration 4, and 3940, consideration 3). Decisions concerning the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract, the abolition of a post, and/or a restructuring process, are discretionary decisions subject to limited review by the Tribunal. A restructuring decision must be justified by real needs (see Judgment 4009, consideration 15). The Tribunal does not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring process, unless and until it negatively affects a staff member in breach of staff rules and regulations (see Judgment 4841, consideration 4).
The Tribunal has also stated that it is often the case in a challenge to a decision to abolish a post that the aggrieved staff member, in this case the complainant, will develop arguments, often at length, as to how the restructuring might have been done differently and without the consequence of their post being abolished, but whether it could have been done differently is usually beside the point. It is sufficient for the organisation to point to legitimate reasons for the action actually taken (see Judgment 4036, consideration 15).
Moreover, the case law also requires that 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 4503, consideration 7, 3769, consideration 7, 3626, consideration 12, 3586, consideration 10, and 3582, consideration 9). However, the case law does not require that reasons be stated in the text that give notice of the non-extension (see Judgments 3837, consideration 10, and 1750, consideration 6). The reasons may emerge at some later time and even during the course of the appeal proceedings so long as the staff member is fittingly permitted to reply (see Judgments 3837, consideration 10, and 1817, consideration 6). Further, it is sufficient if the reasons emerge orally in a meeting or discussion (see, for example, Judgment 3837, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1750, 1817, 3448, 3582, 3586, 3626, 3769, 3837, 3940, 4009, 4036, 4462, 4503, 4587, 4841
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; judicial review; motivation; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4916
139th Session, 2025
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her Performance Appraisal Report for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020 and the decision not to renew her appointment due to unsatisfactory performance and loss of trust.
Consideration 4
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, Judgment 4654, consideration 16). However, under the Tribunal’s case law applicable to contractual relationships generally, a decision not to renew a contract must be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones (see, for example, Judgments 4495, consideration 15, 3769, consideration 7, 3353, consideration 15, and 1128, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 3353, 3769, 4495, 4654
Keywords:
discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; limits; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant […] seeks the annulment of her 29 October 2020 [Performance Appraisal Report – PAR], covering the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020, and the re-opening of the performance appraisal procedure for that period to correct the substantive and procedural errors committed in her PAR. However, given the time that has elapsed since the complainant’s separation from the organisation, the Tribunal finds no useful purpose to order the re-opening of the performance appraisal procedure for the aforementioned period.
As the complainant has established that her 29 October 2020 PAR and the resulting decision not to renew her appointment were tainted by an error of law, […] the complainant’s 29 October 2020 PAR must be annulled.
Keywords:
decision quashed; mistake of law; non-renewal of contract; performance; performance evaluation; performance report;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant seeks material damages equivalent to the remuneration, including benefits and allowances, she would have received had her contract been renewed for one year. It should be noted that the complainant held a temporary appointment which, according to its terms and the Tribunal’s case law, carried no expectation of renewal (see, for example, Judgments 4588, consideration 19, 4587, consideration 19, 4462, consideration 18, 3580, consideration 6, and 3448, consideration 7). Even if the complainant’s 2020 PAR had been properly conducted and there was no flaw in the procedure, there is no guarantee that it would have resulted in a favourable outcome for the renewal of her appointment. However, since the complainant lost a valuable opportunity to have her contract renewed, she is entitled to material damages, which the Tribunal assesses in the amount of 30,000 euros.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3448, 3580, 4462, 4587, 4588
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material damages; mistake of law; non-renewal of contract; performance report;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; complaint allowed; mistake of law; non-renewal of contract; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; testimony; witness;
Judgment 4877
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 2
Extract:
It must be recalled that the Tribunal has consistently held that the 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 4654, consideration 16, 4172, consideration 5, 2148, consideration 23, or 1052, consideration 4). That is, a fortiori, the situation in a case such as this where the dispute concerns the non-renewal of a temporary appointment which expressly stated that the appointee was not guaranteed any renewal or conversion of his contract into any other type of contract with UNESCO.
Nonetheless, under the Tribunal’s case law applicable to contractual relationships in general, a non-renewal decision must also be based on objective, valid reasons, and not on arbitrary or irrational ones (see, in particular, Judgments 4809, consideration 10, 4654, consideration 16, 4495, consideration 15, 3769, consideration 7, 3353, consideration 15, 2708, consideration 12, 1154, consideration 4, and 1128, consideration 2). Those reasons must also be communicated to the staff member concerned (see, in particular, Judgments 4809, consideration 10, 3914, consideration 14, and 3444, consideration 8), although they need not necessarily appear in the decision itself (see, to that effect, Judgments 4368, consideration 15, 3914, consideration 15, and 1750, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1052, 1128, 1154, 2148, 2708, 3353, 3444, 3769, 3914, 4172, 4368, 4495, 4654, 4809
Keywords:
discretion; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its own case law [...] according to which the reasons for a non-renewal decision need not necessarily appear in the decision itself (see, for example, Judgments 4368, consideration 15, 3914, consideration 15, and 1750, consideration 6), but may also be communicated to the staff member concerned in another way, such as at a meeting (compare, for example, with Judgment 3914, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1750, 3914, 4368
Keywords:
administrative decision; motivation; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, reasonable notice must always be given when a temporary appointment is brought to an end, regardless of the terms of the contract in question or the provisions of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules of the organisation concerned (see, in particular, Judgments 3746, consideration 9, 3353, consideration 24, and 1544, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1544, 3353, 3746
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract; notice;
Judgment 4860
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract upon expiry.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4841
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she used to hold and not to renew her contract beyond 31 December 2020.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has often reiterated that a staff member appointed on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract, when it expires (see, for example, Judgments 4587, consideration 19, 4462, consideration 18, 3586, consideration 6, and 3448, consideration 7). As a result, the Tribunal’s scope of review is limited when an organization decides not to extend or renew a fixed-term appointment because the Tribunal respects an organization’s discretion to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 3948, consideration 2, and the case law cited therein). Thus, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. The non-renewal of a fixed-term contract may be lawfully justified by the abolition of the post in the context of a restructuring process, provided that the abolition of the post be based on objective and valid grounds, as the abolition of a post must not serve as a pretext for removing unwanted staff, which would constitute an abuse of authority (see Judgment 3940, consideration 3). A restructuring decision must be justified by real needs (see Judgment 4009, consideration 15). An international organization may find that it has to reorganise some or all of its departments or units. Restructuring measures may naturally entail the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts or the redeployment of staff. The steps to be taken in this respect are a matter of an organization’s discretion and are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4004, consideration 2, and 3940, consideration 3).
In brief, decisions concerning the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract, the abolition of a post, and/or a restructuring process, are discretionary decisions subject to limited review by the Tribunal. Non-renewal decisions may be set aside only if they were taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; if they rest upon an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 3299, consideration 6). In turn, restructuring decisions, including the abolition of posts, may be set aside only if they are not taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, if they rest upon a mistake of fact or law, or if they constituted an abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring, as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4004, consideration 2, 2933, consideration 10, and 2742, consideration 34).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2933, 3448, 3586, 3940, 3948, 4004, 4009, 4462, 4587
Keywords:
abolition of post; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4840
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[A]n international organization must comply with the procedures it has established for evaluating performance before deciding to terminate or not to renew a contract for unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 4666, consideration 4, the Tribunal aptly stated the following in this respect:
“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).”
In Judgment 3417, also involving IOM, this principle was enunciated in no uncertain terms at consideration 6:
“However while there is an undoubted right of an organisation to decide not to renew a fixed-term contract, it does not follow that an organisation is, additionally, immune from any liability if it has failed to follow its own procedures designed to monitor, assess and evaluate staff performance and progress. The fundamental purpose of such procedures is to explicitly alert a staff member to identified deficiencies in her or his performance and thus give the staff member an opportunity to address those deficiencies and improve performance. The interaction of such procedures and decisions not to renew fixed-term contracts was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2991, under 13:
‘It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given 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 [...].’”
This is entirely consistent with the related principle to the effect that an organization 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, for example, Judgments 3932, consideration 21, and 3252, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2991, 2992, 3252, 3417, 3932, 4666
Keywords:
breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 29
Extract:
Firm and constant precedent has it that an international organization has a duty to provide valid reasons for a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. For example, in Judgment 4503, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following in support of this principle:
“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).”
In Judgment 3586, consideration 6, the Tribunal further clarified that “[t]hese 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 contained a similar provision”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 3444, 3586, 4503
Keywords:
breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 8
Extract:
With respect to decisions pertaining to the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts, the Tribunal has also emphasized the limited scope of the review it can exercise. In Judgment 4146, consideration 3, it stated, in particular, the following:
“The case law of the Tribunal states that an organisation enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment and, a fortiori, whether to convert it into an indefinite one. Although the exercise of such discretion is not unfettered, it is subject to only limited review, as the Tribunal will respect the organisation’s freedom to determine its own requirements. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only set aside such decisions if they were taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if they 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, for example, Judgment 3772, under 5).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772, 4146
Keywords:
fixed-term; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract;
Considerations 23-24
Extract:
[T]he CoM thus failed to give the complainant reasonable time to improve her performance between the time that he recognized that it had improved sufficiently enough to warrant a longer contract renewal and the last-minute reversal of this view that led to the sudden imposition of the decision of non-renewal.
In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the Organization breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve her performance. The Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that in terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 3282, consideration 5, it stated the following in this respect:
“As in Judgment 2916, under 4, the Tribunal holds that ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it 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 [...].’”
Similarly, in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2916, 3026, 3282
Keywords:
breach; due process; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
Consideration 34
Extract:
[T]he complainant claims material damages in an amount equal to two years’ salary, benefits, step increases, pension contributions, and all other entitlements and emoluments that she would have received had she not been wrongfully separated from service. This claim is not substantiated in the complainant’s proceedings be it in terms of years sought or of her expectations within the Organization. Given that any fixed-term contract the complainant ever held with IOM never exceeded one year and that the total length of her services with the Organization lasted approximately five years, the Tribunal considers that this claim is not justified and overstated in the circumstances.
An award of material damages in an amount equivalent to nine months’ salary, including benefits, entitlements and emoluments, represents a fair and reasonable compensation in the present case. IOM will be ordered to pay this amount to the complainant, plus interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from 1 November 2019, less any amounts she may have earned from other employment during that period of nine months beginning on 1 November 2019.
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; due process; fixed-term; injury; material damages; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 35
Extract:
The complainant also claims moral damages in an amount equal to no less than one year of her former gross salary and benefits. But the Tribunal’s case law states that in respect of damages, the complainant bears the burden of proof and that she must provide evidence of the alleged injury (see, for example, Judgment 4156, consideration 5). It suffices to note that in the present situation, notwithstanding this precedent, the complainant did not provide any specification of the moral injury she allegedly suffered nor evidence supporting its existence. This claim must consequently be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; due process; fixed-term; injury; moral damages; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Staff Regulation 11.2.2 relevantly states that the end of a fixed-term contract at its normal term does not create a right for the employee to have his or her contract automatically renewed or extended. The Tribunal’s case law states that notwithstanding a provision such as Staff Regulation 11.2.2 or a similar provision in a complainant’s terms of appointment, the wide discretion an international organization enjoys in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment 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 (see Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision taken without authority; in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; if the decision rested on an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence. The case law further states that the Tribunal’s role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited (see, for example, Judgment 3367, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3367, 4503
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Federation points out, and the facts make clear, the complainant’s position was never abolished but could no longer be funded, and consequently his contract was not extended. The Tribunal has stated, in consideration 11 of Judgment 4231, for example, that ordinarily, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, an organization’s duty to reassign a staff member arises when a post is abolished. As there is no specific provision to the contrary, the Federation had no obligation to reassign the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4231
Keywords:
abolition of post; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that in its report, the Commission correctly referred, among other things, to Judgment 3163, in which the Tribunal considered a contention that alleged lack of funding for the position of the complainant in that case was due to the diversion of funds for that position, and although funds could have been available, the organization chose for a dubious reason not to use them. In consideration 8, the Tribunal stated the following, and that reasoning can be applied to the present case: “[…] It is unnecessary to descend into greater detail about whether funds were or were not available to fund the complainant’s position beyond the beginning of 2010. That is because this Tribunal has set its face against assessing the exercise of a discretionary power, such as the power not to renew a fixed-term contract, unless it is demonstrated that the competent body acted on some wrong principle, breached procedural rules, overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see, for example, Judgments 1044, under 3, 1262, under 4, and 2975, under 15). The substance of the complainant’s case on this issue is that other decisions could have been made which would have resulted in funding being available for the position. The error of fact identified in the complainant’s submissions does not involve the identification of a material fact assumed by the decision-maker to exist, which did not exist. Rather, she identifies facts which would sustain a decision other than the decision actually made. To impugn the exercise of a discretionary decision-making power by reference to, and based on, the factual matrix in which the decision was made, a complainant must demonstrate something more than that other decisions might reasonably have been made on the known facts. It is necessary to establish that the exercise of the discretionary power miscarried because the decision-maker was led into error by proceeding on a misunderstanding about what the material facts were. As the complainant has failed to do so, this plea must be rejected.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1044, 1262, 2975, 3163
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s right to be heard [in the internal appeal procedure] was violated […] [T]he Tribunal will not remit the case to the Federation for the internal appeal to be reconsidered as it is satisfied that the reason provided for the non-renewal of the complainant’s contract is supported by the evidence in the record.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A] decision not to renew a fixed-term contract must be based on objective and valid grounds and the staff member must be informed in a timely manner of the real reason for the decision.
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant refers to consideration 13 of Judgment 3586 in which the Tribunal considered that “[w]hether funds were known to have been available to fund the extension of the complainant [in that case]’s contract [was] a question of fact, which the [internal appeal body] had to determine” and that “[the internal appeal body] could not have simply relied on [the organization]’s assertion that grants were received for specified purposes that did not include funding for the complainant’s post”. It is apparent to the Tribunal that this is the exercise the Appeals Commission conducted in the internal appeal procedure at hand. The Commission assessed the relevant documents and facts it had gathered from the Federation and from the interviews it conducted, including with the complainant, it made a finding that “no funding was available for the [...] position held by the [complainant].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; internal appeals body; non-renewal of contract;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 | next >
|
