��ż���

As the Applicant filed the application before the Dispute Tribunal almost two months after the decision to include his name in the ClearCheck database was implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.

For an application for suspension of action to be successful, there must be at least an averment of irreparable harm to the Applicant, which the present application did not contain. The reasons proffered by the Applicant did not constitute grounds for a finding of irreparable damage to the Applicant. The Applicant did not show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him any harm that could not be compensated by an appropriate award of damages in the event the Applicant subsequently decided to file an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute (Evan...

The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as it concerned a recruitment process that was still ongoing and for which there had been no selection decision. The decision not to invite the Applicant for an interview was an intermediate step that was not a final reviewable administrative decision. Consequently, the application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal considered that the Applicant did not establish the required irreparable damage. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not submit that she faced loss of employment or income, but rather that her placement on ALWP was “detrimental and harmful to her professional work and reputation”. Second, by arguing that “she [would] have to painstakingly re-establish her credibility and authority” and “rehabilitate” her professional image, she was, in fact, arguing that these aspects can be repaired. Third, the Applicant did not provide any supporting documentation, such as a medical...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant had met all the requirements for a suspension of action by showing that the contested decision appeared prima facie to be unlawful, that this was a case of particular urgency, and that implementation of the decision would cause irreparable damage.

The Tribunal initially ordered that, in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal in Villamoran 2011-UNAT-160, the contested should not be implemented during pendency of the present proceedings and before it had adjudicated all matters of the present case.

As the Applicant filed the application to the Dispute Tribunal after the selection had already been implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.

The UNAT held that the UNDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The UNAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard. The UNAT observed that he had received “partially meets performance expectations” for two performance cycles, and “does not meet expectations” for the most recent performance cycle. He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

The UNAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. UNDT/2022/124 and that the UNDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The UNAT nevertheless observed that the UNDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the UNAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the UNAT held that the UNDT rightfully refused to...

UNAT considered an appeal against Order No. UNDT/NBI/O/2010/023 by the Secretary-General. Applying the principle that a party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds, UNAT held that the Order had no practical effect following the withdrawal of the request for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was moot as it was academic and sought an opinion regarding the issues raised in the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. UNAT noted that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision on the suspension of action on an administrative is an exception to the general principle of law and must be narrowly interpreted. UNAT held that this exception can only be applied to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of implementation of an administrative decision when a management evaluation is ongoing. UNAT accordingly held that UNAT exceeded its competence when it ordered the suspension of the present action until the judgment on the merits of the Appellant’s...