¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2009/030

UNDT/2009/030, Hastings

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The meaning of any legislative provision is ascertained by the meaning of its words in the light of the intention of the rules as a whole. Where the wording of an instruction suggests that no exception is permitted, a number of common law jurisdictions have found the mandatory or directory dichotomy inappropriate.To establish the meaning and intention of a UN provision the relevant context is the hierarchy of the UN’s internal legislation. This is headed by the Charter of the UN followed by resolutions of the General Assembly, staff regulation and rules, Secretary- General bulletins and then administrative instructions. Staff Rules112.2(b) is relevant when interpreting staff rules and their operational counterparts in the administrative instructions. Exceptions under the Rules may be made by persons properly delegated by the Secretary General. An administrative instruction is not of itself a staff Rules but is the means by which such rules are put into operation. Administrative instructions may be subject to staff Rules112.2(b) in the same way as staff rules are. A decision maker exercising powers conferred by rules and regulations is obliged to turn his or her mind to the factors which are relevant to the decision to be made. Outcome: The question of remedies is reserved as the parties are encouraged to seek a joint resolution of this issue. If they are unable to reach a resolution the parties are proposed to refer the case to mediation.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant applied to the Secretary-General for an exception to be made to administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3 to allow her to apply for a D-2 position that was more than one level higher than her P-5 personal grade. At the time of the application she was receiving a D-1 special post allowance (SPA) as she was working in the acting position for which she wished to apply. The application for an exception was refused by the Assistant Secretary- General for Human Resource Management (ASG). The Applicant sought an administrative review which upheld the original decision.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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
Hastings
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type