爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the question of whether 爆料网DT erred in finding that the five years’ experience requirement was arbitrary and not based on any proper consideration, 爆料网AT held that, absent any proper legal or factual basis upon which to impugn the five years’ experience requirement, 爆料网DT had no function in substituting its judgment for that of the Administration in determining the criteria for the selection of S-3 officers, and in doing so, 爆料网DT erred in law resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in deeming the reliance on ST/IC/1993/66/Add. 1 erroneous. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General’s argument that the 爆料网DT exceeded its competence was not well-founded. 爆料网AT accepted the Secretary-General’s argument that 爆料网DT erred in finding that the decision that requisite service had to be accumulated with the Security and Safety Service (SSS) was unlawful because there were no formally promulgated issuances in the Organisation to that effect. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment in part, namely to the extent that the 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT erred in law and in fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision in finding that the requirement for an S-2 staff member to serve five years within SSS in order to be eligible for a promotion to the S-3 level was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3, arbitrary, manifestly unreasonable and unlawful, and consequently awarded damages to Mr Paukens. 爆料网AT affirmed the remainder of the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicants contested the decisions: (i) not to classify their posts at the S-3 level; (ii) not to pay them special post allowance (SPA) at the S-3 level; and (iii) the determination that they were ineligible to participate in a 2010-2011 promotion exercise. 爆料网DT found that the issue of classification of their posts and the non-payment of the SPA were receivable, but without merit and were accordingly rejected. Concerning their challenge to the 2010-2011 promotion exercise, 爆料网DT found that only one of their claims, that of a Mr. Pauksens, was receivable and found for Mr Pauksens, awarding compensation for loss of chance and pecuniary loss.
Legal Principle(s)
The Tribunals’ role is not to substitute their decision for that of the Administration. The Administration is entitled to set minimum experience eligibility criteria for vacancy announcements absent any promulgated issuance on the subject.