Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2013/073, Chowdhury

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management and the CRB correctly determined that it cannot be in the interest of the Organization nor of its operational activities to grant permanent appointments under the circumstances in force. UNDT rejected the Application to rescind the decision of the Respondent not to grant the him a permanent appointment. There was no indication that the ICTR was afforded delegation of authority to convert a staff member to a permanent appointment; Section 3.3 of SGB/2009/10 only gives power to the responsible officer of Human Resources at a duty station to recommend a sstaff member for permanent appointment. This recommendation has to be approved by the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management, which approval can then be reviewed by the CRB. UNDT held that this procedure was correctly applied in this case. The recommendation made by the CRB was properly acted upon by the Respondent and the necessary elements of the conversion process were correctly adered to. It was also appropriate for the CRB to recommend that the Office of Human Resources Management and the Administration of both the ad hoc Tribunals continue their joint efforts to place the staff of these two Tribunals within other offices of the Secretariat offices using established procedures. UNDT dismissed the Application.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision of the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management not to grant him a permanent appointment, which was a consequence of the downsizing of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) following the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1503 (2003).

Legal Principle(s)

The exercise in the determination of whether candidates should be granted a permanent appointment is two-fold. The responsible officers in the Office of Human Resources Management and the Central Review Bodies (CRB) should first consider whether the candidates satisfy the test of personal attributes. Then the interest of the Organization comes into play.

Outcome
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 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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Chowdhury
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type