Ãå±±½ûµØ

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1. They were timely, having been filed within the applicable deadline, following a properly requested management evaluation. 2. An individual administrative decision, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips for the month of February 2018. 3. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s claim that the administrative discretion is a criterion for determining receivability of an application. Merits: With regard to the case at hand, the Tribunal observed that the General Assembly decided legal parameters of the post adjustment and the ICSC decided its methodological parameters and applied both to calculating the post adjustment being contested. Further, the Tribunal recalled that the ICSC was established by General Assembly resolution 3357 (XXIX) of 18 December 1974. The ICSC Statute was a General Assembly Resolution, and thus had to be read in conjunction with subsequent General Assembly Resolutions of equal normative value, susceptible to modify, alter or amend resolution 3357 (XXIX) approving the ICSC Statute. Accordingly, where the ICSC exercised its delegated regulatory powers, the ICSC remained subordinated to the General Assembly who may intervene, and indeed did so, mainly in the policy stage and after the ICSC decision had been taken. The Tribunal further reasoned that the intervention of the General Assembly removed the matter from the purview of the Tribunals. In such cases, the regulatory decision would be attributed directly to the General Assembly. Thus, the Tribunal’s review became limited to the question of a normative conflict between the acts of the General Assembly, and for this case, whether the individual decision taken by the Secretary-General violated the Applicants’ acquired rights. In view of the above, the Tribunal established that the ICSC had acted in exercise of its delegated regulatory powers under art. 11 of its Statute. Further, the General Assembly by resolutions A-RES-74-255, or both A-RES-74-255 and A-RES-72-255 had implicitly approved the ICSC disputed methodology and/or its results for the Geneva post adjustment. On whether the impugned decision violated the Applicants’ acquired rights as per staff regulation 12.1, the Tribunal found that the application of the new post adjustment was not retroactive and as such did not infringe on their rights. Further, the Tribunal found that the contested decision did not undermine the very existence of the Applicants’ right to post adjustment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the applications failed and were thus dismissed.