Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the legality and rationality of the Administration¡¯s conclusion that it was not in its interests to retain the Appellant because he did not possess the relevant language skills. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was necessary for the Administration to take into consideration the interests, needs, and operational realities of the Organisation when determining the suitability of staff members for a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was undoubtedly a rational basis for the denial of a permanent appointment for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that irrespective of whether the Appellant was proficient in a third language or had other skills, he did not possess the qualifications for a language staff in the Secretariat given that he had not passed the LCE, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this consideration alone was sufficient legal basis to support the lawfulness of the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to grant him a permanent appointment after the second reconsideration of his suitability. The Administration took into consideration that he had not passed the language competitive examination (LCE) and that he did not have excellent knowledge of two official languages of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ (in addition to French), both prerequisites for the employment of language staff at the Secretariat. The Administration concluded that it was therefore unlikely that his services would be required by the Organisation and accordingly, he was not a suitable candidate for conversion to a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that (1) the fact that the Applicant did not pass the LCE was a proper consideration in assessing his suitability for conversion, (2) the administrative practice of requiring a third language was a reliable ground on which to anchor an administrative decision, provided that said practice was neither manifestly illegal nor abusive, (3) neither a specialisation in law nor an intermediate/advanced level of Spanish provided a sufficient basis to warrant an exception to the requirement for a third language, and (4) the Applicant was not being discriminated against in comparison with professional non-language staff, but rather professional non-language staff and professional language staff had justifiably different recruitment requirements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected his application.
Legal Principle(s)
The Administration must take into consideration the interests, needs, and operational realities of the Organisation when determining the suitability of staff members for a permanent appointment.