̽����ѡ

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant’s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request. 

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant’s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

The issue in this case is whether EG and SEG consist of two independent benefits that can be granted in combination.

Pursuant to sec. 6.1(a) of ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1, the overall maximum amount of SEG shall be equal to the upper limit of the top bracket of the global sliding scale applicable to the education grant scheme. The law does not allow an interpretation where EG and SEG can be “stacked”. 

Indeed, the difference between EG and SEG is in the percentages of reimbursement that eligible staff members are entitled to receive. This difference in reimbursement percentage addresses the...

The ASG/OHR considered all the relevant facts, and weighed the reasons provided by the Director of the RSCE. She considered the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s prior service on a temporary appointment, and the exception previously granted to the Applicant’s sister. 

The Respondent created no legitimate expectation that the exception previously granted to the Applicant’s sister would automatically result in the Applicant being later granted an exception, too; indeed, the derogation in the past had a different factual basis in the type and length of the relationship (and the temporary...

The Tribunal notes that it follows from ST/SGB/2019/2 that the Secretary-General has delegated the relevant authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (“the USG”), who in turn, has sub-delegated it to the ASG in accordance with a table of sub-delegation dated 1 March 2021 that the Respondent has submitted in evidence.  In a note on “delegation details” valid from 15 April 2021 is stated that, “This sub-delegation of decision-making authority addresses a technical error in the attachment of the sub-delegation of decision-making authority issued on...

The first issue UNAT considered was whether UNDT erred in applying ST/AI/2010/3 to the selection of staff for the G-7 post and UNAT found that UNDT did not err in this regard. UNAT noted that the language of paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding With Respect to United Nations Personnel Procedures Application to the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund requires that “[t]he General Service staff of the [Pension] Fund secretariat shall be appointed and promoted through the normal [United Nations appointment and promotion] procedures, according to the policies applicable at the duty stations in...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in deciding that the non-renewal of the staff member’s contract was unlawful. UNAT held that the staff member was aware that a high school diploma was an essential qualification. UNAT held that his contract was conditional upon him producing proof of this qualification. UNAT noted that the staff member was also aware that the consequence of failing to satisfy this requirement was the non-renewal of his contract. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General’s submission that the decision not to renew was neither...

UNAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, UNAT held that UNDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as “D-1...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal, specifically the question of whether Mr Wilson’s circumstances were sufficient to vitiate the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM’s decision. UNAT recalled the criteria set out in Sanwidi, 2010-UNAT-084 (para. 42), according to which it can interfere with an administrative decision. UNAT found that there was no basis for UNDT to conclude that “no proper consideration was given to [Mr. Wilson’s] individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception in this case. ” UNAT found that there was sufficient basis set out...

UNAT held that a SPA can only be granted if the conditions of ST/AI/1999/17 are met, inter alia, that the staff member has been assigned to and discharged the full functions of a post which has been both classified and budgeted at a higher level, and that these prerequisites were not met. UNAT held that the denial of the ex gratia payment was lawful. UNAT held that the Administration did not commit any errors in exercising its discretion. UNAT held that the denial of an ex gratia payment did not violate the principle of equal pay for equal value and did not constitute discrimination. UNAT held...

The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the overall test for a suspension of action with respect to that decision. With respect to the decision to require her to take a break in service prior to her placement on a temporary appointment, the Tribunal found that the three requirements of art. 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute were satisfied. The Tribunal found that, for staff on fixed-term appointments who are being reappointed under temporary appointments following the expiration of their fixed-term appointments, there is no requirement, in law, to take a break in service...