Judgment No. 3257
- Organization: Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom)
- Date: 05.02.2014
- Original: English
- Judges: Barbagallo, Hansen, Rawlins
- Full judgment text - Full judgment text (french)
1. The decisions of the Executive Secretary of 15 April 2011 and of 16 September 2009 are set aside.
2. The Commission shall pay the complainant material damages in the amount equivalent to one yearís salary, including benefits, entitlements and emoluments, with interest at 5 per cent per annum from 1 April 2010.
3. The Commission shall pay the complainant 30,000 euros in moral damages.
4. The Commission shall also pay him 8,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant successfully challenged the decision to offer him a one-year extension of his fixed-term contract rather than the two-year extensions he had previously received.
decision; staff regulations and rules; breach; terms of appointment; performance report; contract; extension of contract; fixed-term; offer; discretion; procedural flaw
"These facts were significant as they highlight the need for reasons in this case because these circumstances impacted the complainantís ability to assess whether he should have accepted the offer of the one-year extension of his contract and whether he should challenge the decision.
It is also significant that the complainant was reminded of the deadline [...], when he had not yet received the explanation. Additionally, it was in the letter [...], which included the explanation, that the Executive Secretary informed the complainant that his contract would expire [...] because he had failed to accept the offer of extension. The Tribunal therefore finds that the decision to offer the one-year extension to the complainant was flawed by the failure of the Administration to provide a timely explanation for that decision."
decision; case law; contract; extension of contract; duration of appointment; offer; termination of employment; notice; flaw
"[T]he Commission breached its own rules regarding the procedure by which the performance appraisal report, which contained the recommendation for the extension of the contract, was to be communicated to the Personnel Division. Paragraph 3.2 of Administrative Directive No. 20 (Rev.2) requires the proposal for the extension of the contract to be submitted to the Personnel Division with a justification of the recommendation that was stated in the proposal. The performance appraisal report was also to be submitted with them.
There are good reasons for this provision. The proposal containing the recommendation, the justification of the recommendation and the performance appraisal report, submitted together, is intended to provide a complete picture of the performance of a staff member. This in turn is to inform a decision which that Division, the PAP or the Executive Secretary may have been required to make."
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 3.2 of Administrative Directive No. 20 (Rev.2)
organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; enforcement; performance report; contract; non-renewal of contract
[C]onsidering the practical difficulties that would arise given the effluxion of time since the non-renewal of the complainantís contract, the Tribunal will not order reinstatement.
reinstatement; non-renewal of contract