Judgment No. 14
THE TRIBUNAL, REJECTING ANY WIDER OR CONTRARY CLAIMS, DECLARES THE LEUTENEGGER STATEMENT RECEIVABLE INSOFAR AS IT IS MADE IN HIS OWN NAME, BUT UNFOUNDED.
The Staff Regulations provide that in the event of a reduction of staff preference be given to staff members with permanent appointments. The "systematic recourse to the statutory exception would be contrary to the spirit of the provisions governing the conditions of service of permanent officials who must in principle be protected against [budgetary] fluctuations, and would thus lead to rendering the notion of permanency of function void of substance; [...] such a procedure would impede good administration and endanger the sound functioning of the international organisations.
contract; permanent appointment; abolition of post; budgetary reasons; priority; termination of employment; staff reduction; organisation's interest; effect
Alleging the inferior quality of the complainant's work, the organization failed by way of exception to give her preferential treatment when implementing staff reductions. "As regards the comparative evaluation of service [...], the Director-General [...] has discretionary power [...]. This discretionary power cannot be used to misuse recourse to the aforementioned exception."
work appraisal; contract; permanent appointment; abolition of post; priority; staff reduction; discretion
"The judge is bound to observe strictly the rules of law and can have recourse to equity only in the event of lack of clarity of the text or silence of the Regulations."
exception; applicable law; general principle; equity; enforcement; no provision