Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT acknowledged that while the Appellant was eligible for a permanent appointment, the Administration was entitled to have regard to the fact that she was recruited because she was a national of Romania for the specific post in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIC Bucharest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that both the Department of Public Information and the Officer-in-Charge of Human Resources Services previously anticipated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIC Bucharest, among others, was scheduled to close in the very near future, due to the uncertainty of the funding by the host country, on which the continuation of the Appellant¡¯s post depended. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in such cases, it is limited to a judicial review of the exercise of discretion by the competent decision-maker. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found nothing to suggest that the Administration exercised its discretion unfairly or capriciously and was satisfied that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error in finding the decision legal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to not grant her a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the decision constituted a reasonable exercise of discretion on part of the Administration.
Legal Principle(s)
In the consideration for conversion to permanent appointment of staff members of the secretariat, eligible to be considered by 30 June 2009, the jurisdiction of the Appeals Tribunal is limited to a judicial review of the exercise of discretion by the competent decision-maker.