2020-��AT-1045

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the appeal was receivable on the basis that the Appellant was not challenging the new scheme for education grant introduced by the General Assembly, but rather the manner in which it was implemented in her specific case and the way in which the Secretary-General interpreted General Assembly Resolution 70/244. ��AT held that ��DT did not err in deciding that the Appellant did not have an acquired right to all of the previous education benefits she had enjoyed. On the question of the Appellant��s access to a discretionary consideration of her claims on exceptional grounds, ��AT held that the Staff Regulation (as amended) excluded boarding claims for dependent tertiary students in circumstances such as the Appellant��s. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to pay boarding and travel-related expenses for tertiary education in respect of her two dependent children. ��DT found the Applicant��s claims receivable. However, ��DT found against the Applicant on the merits, essentially because her circumstances fell outside the recently modified eligibility criteria for such assistance. ��DT also rejected her alternative case that she was entitled to rely on previously acquired rights to such assistance.

Legal Principle(s)

Acquired rights are to be distinguished from contractual rights. Acquired rights may include contractual rights, but also may comprise a bundle of enhanced employment contractual rights. An acquired right must be a right that has vested.

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

Nicholas

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement