2018-Ģ��ƵAT-850

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to Ģ��ƵDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with Ģ��ƵDT��s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant��s post. Ģ��ƵAT also agreed with Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that Ģ��ƵFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. Ģ��ƵAT denied the Appellant��s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of delay. Ģ��ƵAT further noted that it could not see how this procedural error might have affected the decision of the case. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDTs judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested Ģ��ƵFPA��s decision to terminate his appointment. Ģ��ƵDT found that the evidence did not establish a nexus between the Applicant��s reassignment of his post or termination that followed and that the decision to abolish the post was duly authorized by the Ģ��ƵFPA Executive Director. Ģ��ƵDT also found that the Applicant did not fulfil his good faith obligations to seek new employment for himself Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application and the Applicant��s requests for recission, compensation, and legal costs.

Legal Principle(s)

In a restructuring process, the Administration does not have an obligation to place affected staff members in new positions.

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

Zama

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement