2015-Ģ��ƵAT-526

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

On the Appellants�� request for an oral hearing, Ģ��ƵAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants�� request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, Ģ��ƵAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. Ģ��ƵAT held that: Ģ��ƵDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; Ģ��ƵDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of Ģ��ƵAT in the definition of administrative decision; and Ģ��ƵDT correctly opined that when Ģ��ƵAT had determined its jurisprudence on a precise legal question, it was not appropriate for Ģ��ƵDT to examine the jurisprudence developed by other jurisdictions. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the Ģ��ƵDT��s reasoning that the issuance of secondary salary scales did not amount to an administrative decision and held that Ģ��ƵDT did not make an error of law when it refused to receive the Appellant��s claim challenging the issuance of secondary salary scales for staff hired on or after 1 March 2012. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the Ģ��ƵDT��s reasoning that the salary freeze did not constitute an administrative decision and that it was a measure with regulatory power that Ģ��ƵDT had no competence to rescind. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not make an error of law when it refused to receive the Appellants�� claim regarding the salary freeze. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicants contested the Secretary-General��s decision to accept the Headquarters Salary Steering Committee��s recommendations for the promulgation of revised salary scales for the General Service and National Officer categories of staff in Bangkok, that would freeze the salaries for extant staff members and establish a second tier of salaries for staff members hired on or after 1 March 2012. Ģ��ƵDT found that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT is competent to review its own competence. When Ģ��ƵAT has determined its jurisprudence on a precise legal question, it is not appropriate for Ģ��ƵDT to examine the jurisprudence developed by other jurisdictions. Decisions by which the Secretary-General fixes salary scales are measures with regulatory power which the Ģ��ƵDT has no competence to rescind.

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

Tintukasiri et al

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement