2013-Ģ��ƵAT-342

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. Ģ��ƵDT/2012/104 and Ģ��ƵDT/2012/135. Noting that, where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability ratione temporis, Ģ��ƵAT affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment on receivability. On the merits, Ģ��ƵAT held that the contested policy, requiring Mr Manco to renounce his permanent resident status in a country not of his nationality as a condition for becoming a staff member of the Organisation at the professional level, was not reflected in any administrative issuance and concluded that it had no legal basis, as the Secretary-General had not complied with the requirements set by the Fifth Committee for its implementation. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was nothing in the Ģ��Ƶ Charter to suggest that geographical distribution is based on resident status, noting that recruitment into the Organisation has been based on nationality, and not residence. Ģ��ƵAT held that the case was a reiteration of Valimaki-Erk (2012-Ģ��ƵAT-304), in which Ģ��ƵAT awarded moral damages, and that there was no reason to depart from that precedent. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed both Ģ��ƵDT judgments.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the requirement that he apply for citizenship or renounce his permanent residency status as a condition for becoming a staff member. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2012/104 on receivability, Ģ��ƵDT found the application receivable ratione temporis and ratione materiae. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2012/135 on the merits, Ģ��ƵDT found for the Applicant, awarding three months�� net base salary.

Legal Principle(s)

A written decision is necessary if the time limits are to be correctly and strictly calculated; where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability ratione temporis. Decisions taken at the Fifth Committee session are to be recorded in its report to the General Assembly for the guidance of the Secretary-General in giving effect to the policies thus approved through appropriate amendments to the Staff Rules.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Manco

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry