Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s challenge to Staff Rule 3.3(b) ¨Cspecifically, the distinction drawn between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination ¨C in force at the time of his selection and whose reestablishment was ordered by the General Assembly, could not be subject to judicial review, as it would be tantamount to testing the substantive content of a resolution against higher normative values, a question that fell outside the remit of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that, since the staff member was selected for the position on 17 May 2024, after the reinstatement of the ¡°two-step formula¡± following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 78/275, it was lawful for the Administration to take the selection decision pursuant to that formula.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, contrary to the staff member¡¯s contention, the Secretary-General's decision to apply the new salary policy promptly did not reflect an unlawful exercise of his discretion. In this respect, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s argument that transitional measures should have been adopted to allow for an extended application of provisional Staff Rule 3.3 to cover his offer of appointment made on 17 May 2024.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion to introduce such transitional measures could not be based on an assessment of the alleged unlawfulness of Staff Rule 3.3(b), whose re-establishment was directed by the General Assembly. In any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that former Staff Rule 3.3 was provisional in nature and could not give rise to acquired rights or legitimate expectations.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/027, albeit partly for different reasons.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵODC) contested his step determination upon promotion (step 1) following his selection for the position of Criminal Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer (the position) at the P-3 level. That determination was made in May 2024 pursuant to the ¡°two-step formula¡± applicable to internal candidates under Staff Rule 3.4(b), which was reintroduced in April 2024 following the withdrawal of provisional Staff Rule 3.3 that had temporarily allowed internal candidates to be placed at higher step levels based on years of experience.
In its Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/027, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the contested decision was lawful and dismissed the staff member¡¯s application.
Staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT does not have the prerogative to apply the Charter or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights directly, nor the power to strike down internal or subsidiary legislative provisions conflicting with the norms they enact. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is not akin to a constitutional court and, thus, has no jurisdiction to declare the Regulations constitutionally incompatible or to strike them down as invalid. It may only determine if there has been ¡°non-observance¡± of the Regulations, i.e., a failure to fulfill or comply with the terms of a provision, rule or policy.Accordingly, the distinction established by Staff Rule 3.3(b) between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination cannot be subject to judicial review.
It is expected that the Secretary-General give prompt effect to General Assembly resolutions. Otherwise, General Assembly resolutions could be halted by the Secretary-General and decisions contravening the letter of those resolutions could be further adopted.
There could be cases where the Secretary-General exercises his discretion by introducing transitional measures to give appropriate regard to factual circumstances that continue to occur amid regulatory changes. However, such discretion is not unfettered and cannot be used to undermine the authority of the General Assembly or to delay the implementation of its resolutions.