Ãå±±½ûµØ

As a preliminary matter, UNAT declined the Appellants’ request for an oral hearing based on the length and complexity of the background of the appeal and that it was not persuaded that it was in the interests of justice to hold one. On the Appellants’ argument that UNAT had erred previously in establishing the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, UNAT noted that they were effectively requesting a revision of two previous UNAT judgments and held that they were time-barred from doing so. UNAT held that the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, as previously established by UNAT, stood and that UNDT had not erred in applying them. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in tying suitability to the availability of future positions outside the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and that it was within UNDT’s discretion to consider that the ICTY and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals were temporary institutions with finite mandates, therefore, there were no posts to which the staff members’ skills could have been transferrable. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in refusing to grant permanent appointments to general service staff members. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that in order to find posts for general service staff members who had transferrable skills but were locally recruited, such posts would have had to have existed at their local duty station and, in the absence of such posts, the Organization’s assertion that it would not be in its interest to grant locally recruited staff members permanent appointments was rational and lawful. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the contested decisions were lawful, noting that the general service Appellants did not have any legal entitlement to a change of their locally recruited status to internationally recruited. On the Appellants submission that UNDT erred in not granting permanent appointments to professional staff members, UNAT held that the Administration retained discretion as to how to assess the transferrable skills of the staff members and did not err in exercising it. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the contested decisions were lawful. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.