2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1029

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT correctly concluded that Ģ��ƵRWA had failed to provide sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible reasoning and had not acted lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. Ģ��ƵAT held that once a staff member was eligible for EVR in accordance with paragraph 8 of Area Staff Rule 109. 2, paragraph 9 became applicable and its text was clear. Ģ��ƵAT held that Mr. El Madhoun was eligible for EVR and it was not established that budgetary constraints were either ground for rejecting his request for EVR or for not withdrawing his notice of termination of his appointment. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his appointment in the interest of Ģ��ƵRWA. Ģ��ƵRWA had failed to adduce any evidence in support of its generic reasoning that the staff member��s requests for early voluntary retirement were rejected due to lack of funds and/or budgetary constraints. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found the termination decision to be illegal and ordered rescission or payment of compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

The discretion of the Commissioner-General of Ģ��ƵRWA to reject a request for Early Voluntary Retirement (EVR) on grounds of budgetary constraints is not unfettered. Ģ��ƵRWA must use its discretion reasonably and properly, taking into account all relevant considerations. The reasoning for a harmful administrative decision must be sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible. Generic reasoning befitting every case is insufficient and renders the decision unlawful.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

Reinstatement or financial compensation; 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

El Madhoun

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement