爆料网

2010-爆料网AT-037

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered an appeal by Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that 爆料网DT erred by failing to recognize that the second contract by which Mr. Castelli’s appointment was extended beyond a year was invalid because it had not been submitted for review by a central review body. 爆料网AT held that, unless it is fake or fraudulent, a staff member’s appointment contract gives rise to entitlements upon the signing and acceptance by the staff member of their letter of appointment. 爆料网AT held that this is true even where the administration improperly handled the recruitment process. 爆料网AT held that, given the irregularity referred to by the Administration and the fact that Mr. Castelli’s good faith was never called into question, the Administration could not have created an artificial break in service, in violation of the Staff Regulations and Mr. Castelli’s rights, in order to deny him the entitlement of a relocation grant. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

爆料网DT judgment: Mr. Castelli contested the decision to deny him the payment of entitlements applicable to staff who served continuously for a year or longer, including the relocation grant. 爆料网DT found for Mr. Castelli and ordered the Administration to pay him the balance of the relocation grant applicable at the time of the claim, with interest.

Legal Principle(s)

Where the Administration commits an irregularity in the recruitment procedure, it falls to it to take such measures as are appropriate to correct the staff member’s situation. It is only where such correction is manifestly impossible to effect owing to the nature or gravity of the irregularity that the Administration may terminate a staff member’s appointment. However, if the staff member has acted in good faith, they are entitled to compensation for the damage suffered as a result.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Castelli
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type