�鶹��ý

Sec. 10.2 of ST/AI/2010/3 stipulates that “[t]he decision to select a candidate shall be implemented upon its official communication to the individual concerned” and that “[w]hen the selection entails promotion to a higher level, the earliest possible date on which such promotion may become effective shall be the first day of the month following the decision, subject to the availability of the position and the assumption of higher-level functions”.

The Tribunal noted the different approaches that the Dispute Tribunal has taken in the past regarding the interpretation of sec. 10.2 and the meaning of the word “effective” in the second sentence (see, for instance, Finniss Order No. 116 (GVA/2016) and Wilson Order No. 241 (NY/2016)). At the same time, the Tribunal noted the Appeals Tribunal’s jurisprudence on the formation of the employment contract according to which the determinative action is the issuance of the letter of appointment and that until then only a “quasi-contract” exists (see, Al Hallaj 2018UNAT-810, paras. 38 and 39).

In the Tribunal's interpretation of sec. 10.2, the implementation of the contested selection decision and the timing of when the resultant promotion becomes effective are two different matters.

Regarding the formation of the employment contract, under the general principles of contract law, such contract would be formed upon the successful candidate’s unconditional acceptance of the job offer (similarly, see Wilson, paras. 22-32 and the Appeals Tribunal’s case-law referred to therein: Sprauten 2011UNAT-111, Iskandar 2012-UNAT-248 and Cranfield 2013-UNAT-367).

The Appeals Tribunal has also held that “the employment contract of a staff member subject to the internal law of the United Nations is not the same as a contract between private parties” (see Sprauten, para. 24).