2013-Ģ��ƵAT-367

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in law in its determination. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no legal basis for Ģ��ƵDT to bind the Administration to a 90-day statutory time limit. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was not necessary to remand the case to Ģ��ƵDT for consideration of the merits as the issue was one of law, namely, whether the Administration was entitled to revoke the indefinite appointment granted to Ms Cranfield. Ģ��ƵAT held that as of 30 June 2009, Ģ��ƵAT held a contract of indefinite appointment which meant that she was not eligible for conversion to such an appointment. Ģ��ƵAT noted that post 30 June 2009, contracts of permanent or indefinite appointment no longer existed and therefore there was no legal basis upon which to grant her an indefinite appointment. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision to grant her the indefinite appointment was invalid. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Administration was entitled to correct its decision and there were no grounds upon which the Administration should be prevented from correcting its mistake. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the moral damages award had not been appealed by the Secretary-General, and as such, Ms Cranfield remained the beneficiary of that award. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Ģ��ƵDT order rescinding the decision, and affirmed the decision to retract her indefinite appointment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to retract her indefinite appointment. Ģ��ƵDT found for the Applicant on the basis that the Administration failed to correct its mistake within ninety days.

Legal Principle(s)

In situations where the Administration finds that it has made an unlawful decision or an illegal commitment, it is entitled to remedy that situation. Interests of justice require that the Secretary-General should retain the discretion to correct erroneous decisions.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Cranfield

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement