��DT/2013/143

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

She alleged that the Administration advised her wrongly to resign from her 100-series fixed-term appointment (FTA) with ��DP, Kosovo, in 2007, when she was offered a FTA with ��V, Bonn, and argued that her resignation cannot be taken into account when assessing her eligibility for consideration for conversion, namely the requirement of 5-year continuous service. Following requests for additional information, the Tribunal found that the Administration put the Applicant into an illegal situation when she was first offered a 300-series appointment of limited duration with ��V, Bonn, while she remained on a 100-series contract��on special leave without pay�� from ��DP, Kosovo, and was then asked to resign from her position with ��DP, Kosovo, to be granted a 100-series FTA with ��V, Bonn, which is an integral part of ��DP. The Tribunal decided that the Applicant��s service be deemed continuous and that the contested decision be rescinded.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to deem her ineligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment.

Legal Principle(s)

Consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment: An Applicant who benefitted from an Organization��s policy which was found by the Tribunal to be illegal should not be disadvantaged and that Applicant��s resignation from a contract for the purpose to be granted a new appointment, if based on that policy, cannot be taken into consideration when assessing the Applicant��s eligibility for conversion to a permanent appointment, when examining the requirement of 5-year continuous service.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

No compensation ordered (but judgement for the Applicant)

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

Carrabregu

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement