Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le recours form¨¦ par le fonctionnaire contre la r¨¨gle 3.3 du R¨¨glement du personnel (b) ¨C en l¡¯occurrence, la distinction ¨¦tablie entre les candidats internes et externes en mati¨¨re de d¨¦termination de l¡¯¨¦chelon ¨C en vigueur au moment de sa s¨¦lection et dont le r¨¦tablissement avait ¨¦t¨¦ ordonn¨¦ par l¡¯Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale, ne pouvait faire l¡¯objet d¡¯un contr?le juridictionnel, car cela reviendrait ¨¤ ¨¦valuer le contenu de fond d¡¯une r¨¦solution ¨¤ l¡¯aune de valeurs normatives sup¨¦rieures, question qui ne
relevait ni de la comp¨¦tence de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ni de celle du Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Le TNA a en outre...

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, af...