2014-��AT-418

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT addressed both appeals by the Secretary-General in judgment No. 2014-��AT-418. ��AT held that ��DT did not commit an error of law when it accepted one of the possible reasonable interpretations of Staff Rule 5.3(e) and decided that the SLWOP did not affect the continuous duration of the staff member��s appointment. ��AT held that, contrary to the assertions made by the Secretary-General, the staff member had in fact an expectation of being granted a permanent appointment and that the evidence had been produced at the special hearing on 4 March 2013. ��AT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ��DT judgments.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

��DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision not to convert his appointment to a permanent appointment due to the fact that his six months Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP) resulted in him not having acquired five years of continuous service on a fixed-term appointment under the 100-series of the Staff Rules by 30 June 2009. ��DT issued a judgment on liability and found that the decision to deny the Applicant��s conversion to a permanent appointment was unlawful and that it should, therefore, be rescinded. Later ��DT issued a judgment on relief and found that the Applicant had suffered distress and anxiety in the wake of the contested decision, but that the severity of the distress level was at the lower end of the scale. ��DT awarded the Applicant compensation for emotional harm.

Legal Principle(s)

General Assembly Resolution 37/126 of 17 December 1982 decided that upon completion of five years of continuing good service, staff members on fixed-term appointments shall be given every reasonable consideration for a career appointment. ST/SGB/2009/10, in Section 1, adds that to be eligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment, a staff member must, by 30 June 2009: (a) Have completed, or complete, five years of continuous service on fixed-term appointments under the 100 series of the Staff Rules; and (b) Be under the age of 53 years on the date such staff member has completed or completes the five years of qualifying service.

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 ��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

Guedes

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement