2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1042

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT was correct in its finding that the decision to terminate the Appellant��s continuing appointment was unlawful as its purported basis (insufficient funds) did not exist. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was not necessary for it to deal with the issue of whether Ģ��ƵDT erred in its finding that the Administration failed to comply with its obligation of retention. Ģ��ƵAT held that the abolition of the post due to financial reasons did not subsist for judicial review. On the Secretary-General��s argument that Ģ��ƵDT had erred in finding Mr Nugroho was given adequate notice of his termination, Ģ��ƵAT held that this was only a corroborating or subsidiary argument used by Ģ��ƵDT which had little or no relevance for determination of the case. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to terminate his continuing appointment. Ģ��ƵDT found that the contested decision was not supported by facts and was unjustified and unlawful. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Secretary-General had provided no evidence in support of the claims that funds would not be sufficient to cover both meeting and staff costs at the time, or that Member States had decided to prioritize meetings over staff costs. Ģ��ƵDT also found the termination decision to be unlawful for failure to comply with the Staff Rules which required the Organisation to make all reasonable efforts to retain the Applicant��s service as a holder of a continuing appointment. Ģ��ƵDT ordered rescission of the termination decision or two years�� net base salary in lieu of rescission.

Legal Principle(s)

The duty to give reasons for a decision is essential for the Tribunals to exercise their judicial review of administrative decisions, assessing whether they were arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. When a justification is given by the Administration for the exercise of its discretion, it must be supported by the facts.

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

Nugroho

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement