Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of ¡°individual application¡± but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.
Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging ¡°non-compliance¡± with ¡°the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her claim was beyond the jurisdiction of the internal justice system.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the applicability of the Mobility AI to Ms. Stepanova had not yet yielded any direct consequences on her contract or terms of employment, as she had not yet worked for five years in the Vienna duty station and no decision was taken by the Administration requiring her to move to a different duty station.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Stepanova¡¯s appointment, being only for a year, might not be renewed at any point and thus it was entirely speculative whether in five years¡¯ time she would even be employed by the Organization in Vienna. Given that her tenure in Vienna had not yet reached the applicable maximum duty station occupancy limit, her concerns about the impact of the Mobility AI on her were premature, and she suffered from no present legal consequences for its inclusion in her letter of appointment.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that Ms. Stepanova¡¯s application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have been denied as not receivable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in determining otherwise.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal and Ms. Stepanova¡¯s appeal was denied. Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2024/096 was reversed.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member of the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism challenged the application of the United Nations¡¯ mobility policy on the grounds that she had a contractual right to its non-application.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2024/096, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the staff member failed to establish any unlawful factor in the inclusion of the Mobility Administrative Instruction (Mobility AI) in her terms and conditions of employment and dismissed the application its entirety.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
A staff member¡¯s letter of appointment contains expressly or by reference all the terms and conditions of employment.