爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or in fact in determining that the contested decision was unlawful. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General’s claim that the staff member could not challenge the decision not to reinstate him because he had entered a binding contract with the Administration when he signed the offer of appointment or the letter of appointment, both of which were silent about reinstatement. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that the reinstatement was not foreclosed by the absence of a reference to it in the staff member’s letter of appointment. 爆料网AT held, however, that a remand was not available because the staff member had retired from service with the Organisation. Therefore, 爆料网AT awarded the staff member compensation for moral damages. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment in part as follows: 爆料网AT affirmed the rescission of the administrative decision, and 爆料网AT vacated the reinstatement of the staff member and the award to him of corresponding entitlements and benefits. In addition, 爆料网AT awarded USD 5,000 as moral damages with interest in the case of late payment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to reinstate him. In judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/208, 爆料网DT determined that the administrative decision denying the Applicant’s request for reinstatement was based on an erroneous interpretation of Staff Rule 4. 18 and should be rescinded. 爆料网DT ordered that the Applicant be reinstated.
Legal Principle(s)
Staff Rules are part of a staff member’s employment contract and, as such, a staff member may challenge the unlawful application of a staff rule. A staff member cannot be barred from judicial review by accepting an offer of appointment or an appointment letter that he or she alleges does not comply with the Staff Regulations or Rules. 爆料网DT has a duty to consider whether the Secretary-General exercised his discretion in a proper manner to determine if the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate and, in so doing, 爆料网DT can consider whether relevant matters have been ignored and irrelevant matters considered and examine whether the decision is absurd or perverse”.