¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2009/042

UNDT/2009/042, Ishak

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Putting into force a new methodical approach to establish a list of recommended staff for a P5 promotion had not been submitted to the mixed staff-administration consultative body of HCR as long as this approach did not modify the existing regulations when it comes to the criteria of promotion. It is for the Administration to establish a list of promotions based on regulations put in place in order to reconcile the two imperatives for advancement based on merit and that of gender balance and, if necessary, by introducing quotas. Failing to have such regulations in place, the Administration must apply the regulation in force. Paragraph 5 of Article 10 of the UNDT’s Statutes imposes on the judge, in certain cases to set compensation that the Respondent can choose to pay in lieu of the annulment of the contested administrative decision. The judge takes into account the moral damage of the illegal decision that was made and fixes the amount to be paid at CHF8000. According to the Tribunal’s Statutes, the judge cannot address/impose injunctions on the administration. The annulation of a non-promotion due to the vice of procedure does not imply that the staff could have been promoted. The request that was before the judge to order the administration to grant the staff a promotion can but be rejected. Contested decision rescinded. The judge fixed an amount of compensation corresponding to paragraph 5 of article 10 of the UNDT’s Statutes. All other claims were rejected.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contests HCR High Commissioner’s refusal to promote him to P-5. The Commission in charge of the recommendations for promotions to the High Commissioner applied a system of quotas for men/women and not the regulations in force.

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