2019-Ģ��ƵAT-927

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT agreed with Ģ��ƵRWA DT that the legal framework did not establish an automatic right of the staff member to the extension of his or her service beyond the age of retirement upon the submission of the pertinent application, even if she or he satisfied those two conditions. However, Ģ��ƵAT held that, contrary to Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s finding, the Administration has the discretion to deny a request to extend a staff member��s service beyond retirement only in exceptional cases and on account of the interests of Ģ��ƵRWA, which must be reflected clearly and precisely in the reasoning for the decision. Ģ��ƵAT held Ģ��ƵRWA did not specify in precise and equivocal terms in what way the continuation of the Appellant��s service constituted an obstacle to its internal succession plans, rendering Ģ��ƵAT unable to review whether exceptional circumstances existed. Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision was unreasonable and thus, unlawful. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA��s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision and the exercise of its discretion resulted in an unlawful decision. Ģ��ƵAT held that there could be no award of compensation because the Appellant had not presented any evidence that he suffered material or moral injury. Ģ��ƵAT partly upheld the appeal by modifying the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment to rescind the impugned decision (with an alternative in-lieu compensation in the amount of six months�� net base salary). Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal in all other respects and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to extend his service beyond retirement age. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed his application on the merits. Ģ��ƵRWA determined that the relevant rules authorised Ģ��ƵRWA to grant an extension of service beyond retirement age, but they did not entitle a staff member to such a right, Ģ��ƵRWA had properly exercised its discretionary authority and there was no evidence of arbitrariness, prejudice, procedural irregularity or error of law which could have tainted the impugned decision.

Legal Principle(s)

Judicial review is more concerned with examining how the decision-maker reached the impugned decision and not the merits of the decision-maker's decision. Due deference is always shown to the decision-maker. As part of its judicial review, it is necessary to determine whether the decision was vitiated by bias or bad faith, that is if it was taken for an improper purpose. An administrative decision must be reasoned for the Tribunals to have the ability to perform their judicial duty to review administrative decisions and to ensure the protection of individuals. A harmful administrative decision must be fully and adequately motivated with reasoning, which is sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible; generic reasoning befitting every case is not enough and renders the decision unlawful.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

Outcome Extra Text

Reinstatement or financial compensation.

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

Jafari

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement