2014-Ģ��ƵAT-399

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in law or in fact in determining that the contested decision was unlawful. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General��s claim that the staff member could not challenge the decision not to reinstate him because he had entered a binding contract with the Administration when he signed the offer of appointment or the letter of appointment, both of which were silent about reinstatement. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly concluded that the reinstatement was not foreclosed by the absence of a reference to it in the staff member��s letter of appointment. Ģ��ƵAT held, however, that a remand was not available because the staff member had retired from service with the Organisation. Therefore, Ģ��ƵAT awarded the staff member compensation for moral damages. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment in part as follows: Ģ��ƵAT affirmed the rescission of the administrative decision, and Ģ��ƵAT vacated the reinstatement of the staff member and the award to him of corresponding entitlements and benefits. In addition, Ģ��ƵAT awarded USD 5,000 as moral damages with interest in the case of late payment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to reinstate him. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2012/208, Ģ��ƵDT determined that the administrative decision denying the Applicant��s request for reinstatement was based on an erroneous interpretation of Staff Rule 4. 18 and should be rescinded. Ģ��ƵDT ordered that the Applicant be reinstated.

Legal Principle(s)

Staff Rules are part of a staff member��s employment contract and, as such, a staff member may challenge the unlawful application of a staff rule. A staff member cannot be barred from judicial review by accepting an offer of appointment or an appointment letter that he or she alleges does not comply with the Staff Regulations or Rules. Ģ��ƵDT has a duty to consider whether the Secretary-General exercised his discretion in a proper manner to determine if the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate and, in so doing, Ģ��ƵDT can consider whether relevant matters have been ignored and irrelevant matters considered and examine whether the decision is absurd or perverse��.

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

Egglesfield

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement