Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it held that Staff Rules 4.4 and 4.5 established different recruitment regimes for professional and general service staff, clarifying that they establish different allowances and benefits regimes for local and international recruitment. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. UNAT held that UNDT contradicted UNAT’s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General...

The administrative instruction ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility allowance), which superseded ST/AI/2007/1 (Mobility allowance), was applicable to the Applicant’s request for mobility allowance submitted in January 2012. ST/AI/2011/6 included the requirement of five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system, which in the present case was not fulfilled. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not eligible because she did not meet one of the requirements for payment of the mobility allowance, namely five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system.

The Tribunal noted that the provisions of both the former Staff Rules and the former mobility Administrative Instruction were very clear in that staff members holding temporary appointments are not eligible to receive mobility allowance.; The Tribunal found that the period when the Applicant held temporary appointments could not count towards the requirement of five years’ prior consecutive service.; The Tribunal noted that the Applicant resigned in 2014 from his appointment in the General Service category, which he had held since 1993, and later received successive temporary appointments for...

There is nothing in the wording of sec. 2.5(a) that prescribes for ruling out of the count of one-year assignments that were preceded by an assignment that lasted less than a year. Accordingly, even though the prior assignment of nine months in Cairo did not itself count as an assignment, the following period in Tripoli, which was for one year, fully meets the requirements to be counted as an assignment. The Tribunal finds that there is no room to interpret the relevant provisions to claim, like the Respondent does, that his return to Tripoli in April 2012 should be considered as a...