爆料网

2016-爆料网AT-624

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the lateral reassignment of a staff member, in this case, fell entirely within the discretion of the Administration. 爆料网AT found no evidence of arbitrary and unlawful exercise of discretion in the appeal which could allow 爆料网DT to pronounce on the discretion of the Administration. Finding no illegality and no evidence that the cancellation of the job opening had an adverse effect on the staff member’s morale and professional reputation, 爆料网AT vacated the award of compensation. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to cancel the JO 24760 and to fill the post through a lateral transfer. 爆料网DT found that the Administration’s decision to cancel JO 24760 was lawful. 爆料网DT further found no evidence that the decision was based on extraneous motives such as the intention to block the Applicant from being promoted or to accommodate the lateral reassignment of Ms CP. 爆料网DT, however, found that the decision to laterally reassign Ms CP to the position was unlawful and constituted an arbitrary use of the Administration’s discretion. 爆料网DT awarded compensation to the Appellant for the breach of her rights to be fully, fairly, and timeously considered for the position.

Legal Principle(s)

The Administration has broad discretion in relation to the internal Organisation of its units and departments. The Administration has the power to restructure and reorganize its units and its departments to lend to greater efficiency. It is therefore not within the remit of 爆料网DT to pronounce on the exercise of this discretion to determine whether rostered candidates should be considered and other internal management issues. This can only be done if there is evidence before the 爆料网DT of arbitrary and unlawful exercise of discretion.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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
Simmons
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type