����AV

While the change of the country of home leave referred to in ST/AI/367 is stated to be permanent, it is not unconditional, but subject to the Secretary-General being satisfied of the three specified conditions, which include its consistency with the purposes and intent of staff regulation 5.3.Former staff rule 105.3 gave internationally recruited staff the opportunity to take home leave to visit their home country at UN expense. Providing staff rule 105.3 (d) that the country of home leave shall be the country of the staff member’s nationality, the logical corollary is that if a staff member is residing in his or her country of nationality, there is no entitlement to home leave. Staff rule 105.3 does not contain an express provision for changing the original home country from the one designated as an exception under staff rule 105.3 (d) when circumstances change, but it may be reasonably inferred from staff rules 104.7 (c) and 104.8 that the reference in the ST/AI/367 to “permanent” change should not as a matter of policy be interpreted to mean that that decision can never be changed. The ability of the Secretary-General to revoke a previous exception does not render staff rule 105.3 (d) nugatory. The Secretary-General continues to have the discretion to make exceptions, but is bound by the above-mentioned conditions. It would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the regulations that such an exception should be permanent and immutable. Staff members are entitled to enjoy entitlements acquired by the application of an exception, but only for as long as the circumstances meet the conditions of the exception. If those circumstances materially change, the staff member may lose those acquired rights. The fact of the applicant moving to his country of nationality was good reason for the Secretary-General to reassess his eligibility for the exception. As former UNAT stated in Judgment No. 781, Shaw et al. (1996), where it was held that “[s]taff regulation 3.2 (a) unequivocally excludes from the education grant benefit staff members who reside in the country of which they are nationals. Hence, the Secretary-General is entitled to refuse the applicant’s claim for a continuation of the exception to his place of home leave and to reject his application for the education grant. The respondent has consistently acknowledged that it made an error in advising the applicant that he was entitled to the education grant. As a result, the applicant received two years worth of the education grant to which he would not otherwise have been entitled. That is adequate compensation for the error made and the consequences to the applicant. Outcome: The application was dismissed.