Ãå±±½ûµØ

2013-UNAT-358, Longone

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal by Mr. Longone. UNAT held that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members was vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the UNDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on that issue; UNAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment was lawfully entitled to an individual and a considered assessment before a permanent appointment could be granted or denied and that this was their statutory entitlement which could not be disregarded; UNAT held that the staff members (including Mr. Langone) were discriminated against because of the nature of the entity in which they were employed and that, therefore, the decision of the Assistant Secretary-General for the Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) was legally void, being tainted by arbitrariness and the violation of the staff members’ due process rights; UNAT held that the approach of the ASG/OHRM violated the provision that staff members would be given every reasonable consideration for permanent appointment and that the ASG/OHRM was not entitled to place reliance on the operational realities of the Organisation to the exclusion of all other relevant criteria set out in General Assembly Resolution 51/226; UNAT held that Mr. Longone’s right, which was violated by the aforementioned discriminatory actions and by the absence of due process, was not entitled to the granting of a permanent appointment, but, rather to be fairly, properly, and transparently considered for permanent appointment; UNAT rescinded the impugned decision and remanded the matter to UNDT; UNAT held that Mr. Longone’s appeal with respect to the setting of compensation had been rendered moot and UNAT found no basis to award him pecuniary damages; UNAT held that the substantive due process breaches in the ASG/OHRM’s decision-making met the fundamental nature test established in Asariotis (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-309) and, as such, of themselves merited an award of moral damages of 3,000 Euros. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment, rescinded the decision of the ASG/OHRM, remanded the ICTY conversion exercise to the ASG/OHRM for retroactive consideration of the suitability of Mr Longone within 90 days of the date of the publication of its judgment in accordance with the guidelines set out therein; and awarded Mr Longone 3,000 Euros in non-pecuniary damages.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Previous decision: The Appellant contested the decision not to grant him a permanent appointment. UNDT found for the Appellant, ordering compensation in lieu of specific performance.

Legal Principle(s)

There is a right to be fairly, properly, and transparently considered for a permanent appointment. Damages for a moral injury may occur related to a breach of the employee’s substantive entitlements arising from his or her contract of employment and/or from a breach of the procedural due process entitlements therein guaranteed; where the breach is of a fundamental nature, the breach may of itself give rise to an award of moral damages, not in any punitive sense for the fact of the breach having occurred, but rather by virtue of the harm to the employee.

Outcome
Appeal granted in part

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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.