Judgment No. 665
WHO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT:
1. US$10,000 IN DAMAGES;
2. US$2,000 IN COSTS.
The reason given for non-renewal of the complainant's contract was unsatisfactory performance. The evaluation report for 1981 was signed long after the time limit laid down in the Staff Rules. Only a few weeks elapsed between the completion of the 1981 report and the processing of the 1982 report. As a result, the impugned decision took no account of the fact that between the complainant's two last performance reports he was not given time to add his objections or to show he could come up to expectation. The decision overlooked an essential fact and drew clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The complainant is entitled to damages.
moral injury; administrative delay; time limit; right to reply; performance report; contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; unsatisfactory service; disregard of essential fact; flaw; mistaken conclusion; material damages
"Renewal of an appointment is a discretionary decision. Although the rule provides for automatic expiry in the absence of offer and acceptance of an extension of contract, the decision is still subject to review by the Tribunal, which will set it aside if there was a formal or procedural flaw, or a mistake of fact or of law, or if essential facts were overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence."
contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; judicial review; discretion