Ãå±±½ûµØ

The UNDT noted that the contested decision had been rescinded by the Prosecutor, ICTY, and hence the application was moot. The Applicant contended however that the decision had already been implemented since she was no longer assigned any appeals-related work. The UNDT examined whether her new functions were commensurate with her functional title of Senior Appeals Counsel (P-5), and whether the Prosecutor, ICTY, was entitled to assign her to such tasks. It found that pursuant to staff rule 1.2 (c) and Annex IV to ST/AI/234/Rev.1, the Administration had broad discretionary powers when it comes to organization of work and that the Applicant failed to establish that her new responsibilities did not correspond to her level. In the present case, the Prosecutor, ICTY, explained that he assigned staff, particularly Appeals Division staff, to various assignments depending on operational requirements, as necessary in the context of the ICTY downsizing. The UNDT found that the Prosecutor, ICTY, did not abuse his discretionary authority when he gave the Applicant assignments unrelated with appeals work, and that the Applicant did not establish that this change in her functions was directly linked to her 2011-2012 performance evaluation. Indeed she herself admitted she had already been assigned similar tasks during previous years. The application and the Applicant’s request for withdrawal of her name from the judgment were rejected.