2015-Ģ��ƵAT-556

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the question of whether Ģ��ƵDT erred in finding that the five years�� experience requirement was arbitrary and not based on any proper consideration, Ģ��ƵAT held that, absent any proper legal or factual basis upon which to impugn the five years�� experience requirement, Ģ��ƵDT had no function in substituting its judgment for that of the Administration in determining the criteria for the selection of S-3 officers, and in doing so, Ģ��ƵDT erred in law resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in law in deeming the reliance on ST/IC/1993/66/Add. 1 erroneous. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Secretary-General��s argument that the Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its competence was not well-founded. Ģ��ƵAT accepted the Secretary-General��s argument that Ģ��ƵDT erred in finding that the decision that requisite service had to be accumulated with the Security and Safety Service (SSS) was unlawful because there were no formally promulgated issuances in the Organisation to that effect. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment in part, namely to the extent that the Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT erred in law and in fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision in finding that the requirement for an S-2 staff member to serve five years within SSS in order to be eligible for a promotion to the S-3 level was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3, arbitrary, manifestly unreasonable and unlawful, and consequently awarded damages to Mr Paukens. Ģ��ƵAT affirmed the remainder of the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicants contested the decisions: (i) not to classify their posts at the S-3 level; (ii) not to pay them special post allowance (SPA) at the S-3 level; and (iii) the determination that they were ineligible to participate in a 2010-2011 promotion exercise. Ģ��ƵDT found that the issue of classification of their posts and the non-payment of the SPA were receivable, but without merit and were accordingly rejected. Concerning their challenge to the 2010-2011 promotion exercise, Ģ��ƵDT found that only one of their claims, that of a Mr. Pauksens, was receivable and found for Mr Pauksens, awarding compensation for loss of chance and pecuniary loss.

Legal Principle(s)

The Tribunals�� role is not to substitute their decision for that of the Administration. The Administration is entitled to set minimum experience eligibility criteria for vacancy announcements absent any promulgated issuance on the subject.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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

Scheepers et al

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement