Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not properly review the impugned administrative decision to determine whether the Administration had given full and fair consideration to staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had fully complied with Section 1 of ST/SGB/2009/10 and paragraph 5 of the Guidelines, as it must when considering whether a staff member is eligible for conversion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made a significant error of law in concluding that the impugned decision was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law when it refused to apply the Guidelines, which the staff member had not challenged before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in not applying the guidelines, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had interfered with the Administration¡¯s exercise of its discretion under the Bulletin. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence by reconsidering the information in the staff member¡¯s personnel record and making purported findings of the ¡°facts¡± underlying her 2006 separation or break in service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the staff member¡¯s rights had not been infringed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law in awarding moral damages to her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment: The Applicant contested the decision that she was ineligible for consideration to be converted to a permanent appointment because she did not have five years of continuous service as of June 2009, due to a break in service from 31 August to 9 September 2006. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/058, finding that the Applicant¡¯s ¡°break in service occurred at the insistence of the Organization¡±, rather than the Applicant ¡°acting on her own free will¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that it was not lawful for the Administration to consider the break-in service when evaluating the Applicant¡¯s eligibility for conversion to a permanent appointment and the break-in service that took place in 2006 should not be taken into account for the purposes of consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded the impugned decision and ordered the Administration to give the Applicant full and fair consideration for conversion and awarded the Applicant compensation.
Legal Principle(s)
Judicial review of an administrative decision requires the Tribunal to examine whether the Administration reached its decision in a ¡°reasonable and fair, legally and procedurally correct¡± manner. The right of a staff member is not to the granting of a permanent appointment but, rather, to be fairly, properly, and transparently considered for permanent appointment.