2017-惇蹋厙AT-807

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the 惇蹋厙SPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. 惇蹋厙AT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the 惇蹋厙SPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. 惇蹋厙AT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as an elected member in all relevant areas including the preparations for the Pension Board sessions, meetings of the Pension Board, and of its constituent groups, committees, and working groups.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Two staff members of the 惇蹋厙JSPF were elected to the 惇蹋厙SPC. Following the elections, they were given two options: i) to remain on the 惇蹋厙SPC and accept to be moved to an appropriate post elsewhere in the Secretariat outside the 惇蹋厙JSPF; or (ii) to continue to work in the 惇蹋厙JSPF＊s Secretariat and resign from the 惇蹋厙SPC and the Pension Board. The staff members rejected both options. The staff members were subsequently informed that the Pension Board had discussed the conflict of interest arising from the fact that they had been elected to the 惇蹋厙SPC while serving as staff members of the 惇蹋厙JSPF and that it had decided that they would not be given access to the Pension Board documents nor could they participate in any formal preparations for the Pension Board session and meetings until such time the conflict of interest had been resolved.

Legal Principle(s)

Staff members of the 惇蹋厙JSPF duly elected to the 惇蹋厙SPC have the same rights/privileges as other elected members.

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙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

Rockcliffe

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement