ÍæÅ¼½ã½ã

UNDT/2013/106

UNDT/2013/106, Balan

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was a reasonable exercise of discretion and the Administration’s reasons for the decision were acceptable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant appealed the decision not to grant her a permanent appointment on the grounds that the operational reality of the Organization which was the funding of UNIC, where she was employed was not sustainable in the future.

Legal Principle(s)

Permanent appointment: Staff members eligible for conversion to permanent appointment have no right to be granted such an appointment, but only that of being considered for conversion. Downsizing: It is neither in the interest of the Organization nor of its operational activities to grant permanent appointment to staff whose service, by the terms of their letter of appointment, is limited to an entity which is downsizing.

Outcome
Dismissed on merits

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
Balan
Entity
DPI
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Duty Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Categories/Subcategories