2013-��AT-357

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the ASG/OHRM, and not the ICTY Registrar, had discretionary authority in matters of permanent appointment. ��AT held that the ASG/OHRM had failed to exercise her discretion in a lawful manner in adopting a blanket policy of denial of permanent appointments to ICTY staff members rather than affording them the individual consideration to which they were entitled. Finding that the staff members were discriminated against and the impugned decision was legally void, ��AT rescinded the impugned decisions and remanded the matter to the ASG/OHRM for consideration of retroactive conversion. The above decision by ��AT rendered the appeals of the ��DT award of 2,000 Euros moot. However, ��AT awarded the staff members compensation in the amount of 3,000 Euros each for moral damages.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

��DT judgment: The Applicants contested the decisions not to grant them a permanent appointment. ��DT held that the authority to appoint staff, which was expressly delegated to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Registrar, included the authority to grant permanent appointments. Accordingly, ��DT held that the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) was not the competent decision-maker to determine the granting of permanent contracts to ICTY staff members and, thus, the contested decisions were tainted by a substantive procedural flaw. ��DT ordered rescission of the decisions not to grant the Applicants permanent appointments, noting that the rescission of the decisions does not mean that they should have been granted permanent appointments, but that a new conversion procedure should be carried out. ��DT further ordered an award of in-lieu compensation in the amount of 2,000 Euros.

Legal Principle(s)

In matters of delegation of authority, the legal instrument delegating authority must be read carefully and restrictively. Staff members are entitled to individual, full and fair consideration of their suitability for conversion to permanent appointment.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Baig et al.

Entity

Case Number(s)