2017-Ģ��ƵAT-801

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the Ģ��ƵSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. Ģ��ƵAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the Ģ��ƵSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. Ģ��ƵAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as elected member in all relevant areas including the preparations for the Pension Board sessions, meetings of the Pension Board and of its constituent groups, committees, and working groups.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Two staff members of the Ģ��ƵJSPF were elected to the Ģ��ƵSPC. Following the elections, they were given two options: i) to remain on the Ģ��ƵSPC and accept to be moved to an appropriate post elsewhere in the Secretariat outside the Ģ��ƵJSPF; or (ii) to continue to work in the Ģ��ƵJSPF��s Secretariat and resign from the Ģ��ƵSPC and the Pension Board. The staff members rejected both options. The staff members were subsequently informed that the Pension Board had discussed the conflict of interest arising from the fact that they had been elected to the Ģ��ƵSPC while serving as staff members of the Ģ��ƵJSPF and that it had decided that they would not be given access to the Pension Board documents nor could they participate in any formal preparations for the Pension Board session and meetings until such time the conflict of interest had been resolved.

Legal Principle(s)

Staff members of the Ģ��ƵJSPF duly elected to the Ģ��ƵSPC have the same rights/privileges as other elected members.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Faye

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement