�山����

Binding force of UNAT judgments: Judgments of the Appeals Tribunal are binding upon the parties. Their binding effect is not restricted to the orders provided under the “Judgment” section, but also extends to the other operative paragraphs, which set out the major considerations for the determinations made. Articulation of the interest of the Organization and the criteria for conversion: The interest of the Organization is a legitimate consideration to be taken into account when assessing the suitability of a staff member; however, as articulated in the relevant rules, it is ancillary to the two primary suitability criteria (i.e., the concerned staff member’s qualifications, performance and conduct, and the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity) and is to be appraised together with, and in relation to, them, as opposed to a fully independent criterion on equal footing with the two others. Estoppel: The Organization is stopped from claiming the ineligibility of some applicants since: (a) the concerned individuals had never been made aware that there were not eligible, and in fact were considered eligible during most part of a lengthy process and treated as if they were so in two consecutive conversion exercises, and (b) the letters notifying the non-conversion decisions (issued after the Administration had purportedly detected or verified their ineligibility) plainly stated that each of them fulfilled the eligibility requirements. Meaning of “retroactive consideration”: Implementing retrospectively the decisions resulting from the reconsideration exercise is not sufficient to meeting the requirement of retroactive consideration. The reconsideration exercise ought not to include new circumstances that were only known when the new decisions were reached, but be limited to those known at the time of the initial conversion exercise. For the purpose of the reconsideration exercise, the Applicants’ suitability should have been appraised by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their appointments. Reassignment of staff members holding appointments limited to a certain entity: The limitation of the Applicant’s appointment to service in ICTY/MICT does not preclude the possibility of reassigning them under sec. 11.1(b) of ST/AI/2010/3. Identifying and weighing the interests of the Organization: The Organization disposes of broad discretion to determine what the interests of the Organization are and in weighting them up together with other circumstances. The finite mandate of a staff member’s entity of employment is a factor that can be validly considered in deciding on the conversion of the Applicants’ appointment to permanent, as it is a relevant “operational reality”. However, although it is acceptable to give adequate weight to the operational realities of the entity in question, including its finite mandate, the Administration cannot rely exclusively on this circumstance. Specific performance: Where the judicial review concerns the exercise of discretion, the Tribunal can order specific performance, such as granting conversion to a permanent appointment, solely in the rare hypothesis where the result of the exercise of discretion is narrowed down in such a way that there is only one legally correct outcome. Non-retroactive application of the Statute’s amendment: An amendment of the applicable rules cannot apply to an application filed prior to the adoption of said amendment.