2019-��AT-953

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the consideration of transferable skills as a criterion for future permanent appointment for staff members serving in a downsizing entity is a relevant factor and a legitimate consideration because the finite mandate of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) meant that such staff members had no realistic career prospects in that entity. ��AT held that there was a rational basis for the denial of permanent appointments for the language staff (professional and general service) given the winding down of ICTY and the diminishing need for Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian language skills. ��AT held that the contested decisions pertaining to language staff were not therefore arbitrary, capricious, irrational, actuated by an ulterior or improper purpose, illegal or unreasonable. As for the staff members who were denied permanent appointments due to their local recruitment (general service staff), ��AT held that it was rational for the Organisation to determine that it was not in its interests to grant the locally recruited Appellants a permanent appointment given the significant cost that would be incurred in converting them to international status, and that, accordingly, the contested decisions in relation to these staff were in accordance with the staff rules and the Secretary-General properly took into account the relevant financial considerations in the reasonable exercise of his discretion. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicants contested the decisions not to grant them permanent appointments. ��DT found the decisions to be lawful and dismissed the joint application.

Legal Principle(s)

A permanent appointment may only be granted after consideration of all the interests, needs, and operational realities of the Organisation.

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

McIlwraith et al

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement