Judgment No. 2420
Decision
The complaints are dismissed.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Association of Professional Staff has submitted an amicus curiae brief. Although the possibility of gathering the observations of an association or union representing staff interests is not envisaged under its Statute, the Tribunal considers that it can only be beneficial to extend that possibility, as do other international administrative tribunals, to associations and unions wishing to defend the rights of the staff members whom they represent in the context of disputes concerning decisions affecting the staff as a whole or a specific category of staff members. Indeed, the Organization has raised no objection to the Tribunal's examination of the submissions in question, which are not, however, to be equated with the brief of an intervener, and which are simply intended to clarify certain points raised by the complaints with the Tribunal."
Keywords
general decision; icsc decision; intervention; amicus curiae; iloat statute; staff union
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal has on numerous occasions ruled on the issue of whether an international organisation is bound to comply with general provisions that would infringe the rights of its staff members. The fact that an international organisation belongs to the common system does not enable it to decline or limit its own responsibility towards the members of its staff or lessen the degree of judicial protection it owes them. Any organisation that introduces elements of the common system into its own rules has a duty to ensure that the texts it thereby imports are lawful (on this issue, see Judgment 1265, which refers to Judgments 382 and 825; for more recent examples concerning the duties of the FAO, see Judgments 1713 and 2303). Whilst the Tribunal fully appreciates the difficulties - emphasised by the defendant - that international organisations are liable to face in departing from the salary scales adopted on the basis of ICSC recommendations, it is nevertheless bound to ensure that international law is observed in the relations between the said organisations and their staff, regardless of the external authority from which the decisions taken emanate. Indeed, the case of an organisation having to revise salary scales resulting from recommendations or decisions affecting the common system, whether or not pursuant to a ruling by the competent tribunal, is not without precedent."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 382, 825, 1265, 1713, 2303
Keywords
icsc decision; liability; recommendation; case law; organisation's duties; rule of another organisation; salary; scale; adjustment; decision-maker; criteria; right
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The complainants' second plea is that the methodology applied by the General Assembly [to review salary levels] does not satisfy the requirements of stability, foreseeability and transparency established by the case law. [...] Given that the application of that methodology can yield results as different as those obtained, on the one hand, by the ICSC, and on the other, by the Fifth Committee and subsequently the General Assembly, one may legitimately query its foreseeability. However, it must be borne in mind that a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which was entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle."
Keywords
icsc decision; recommendation; case law; noblemaire principle; organisation's duties; interpretation; salary; scale; adjustment; rate
Consideration 16
Extract:
"[T]he fact that financial considerations were taken into account does not, in itself, invalidate the decision setting the salary scale, provided that the other reasons justifying the decision are correct. In the present case, the evidence on file shows that the scale ultimately adopted was justified by the desire to reduce the imbalances resulting from the application of the previous decisions penalising staff in the higher categories, to restore the remuneration margins in relation to US federal civil servants to values within the range of 110 to 120 and to move closer to attaining the objective of an overall margin level of 115."
Keywords
decision; grounds; professional category; salary; scale; adjustment; budgetary reasons; rate
|
