Íæż½ã½ã

Assessment of irreparable damage in relation to non-selection decisions: The applicant was not the only recommended candidate and, therefore, it could not be concluded that he would have been selected for the litigious post. Accordingly, he failed to show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him irreparable damage.

The Respondent is in breach of the first order for suspension of action (UNDT/2012/029) – merely providing a different reason for the non-renewal does not obviate the need to abide by the original order.

The UNDT found that the Applicant had previously resigned from a temporary appointment and was reemployed on the understanding given to her by MINUSTAH that the period of 364 days, following which she may have to take a break in service, would start running on the date of her new temporary appointment. The UNDT found that the conditions for a suspension of action were met and ordered suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision. Outcome: The UNDT ordered suspension of action on the contested decision pending management evaluation.

Administrative decision: A decision imposing to a staff member an obligation to report to work may not be said to be purely preparatory in nature, as it has effects on his or her terms of appointment. As such, it is a decision open to appeal before the Tribunal. Interim measures: The Tribunal may only grant suspension of action on a decision as an interim measure under articles 10.2 of the Statute and 14 of the Rules of procedure during the proceedings of a case, that is, when there is an application against the same decision pending before it. Management evaluation/receivability of suspension...

The Applicant submitted that she has a legitimate expectation of renewal and that the decision not to renew her contract was motivated by extraneous considerations. The Respondent submitted that the decision was taken as a result of UNMIT’s downsizing in view of its eventual closure. The UNDT found that the requirement of urgency was satisfied. The UNDT found that the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness was also satisfied as the reason provided by the Respondent in support of the contested decision appeared to be unsupported by the facts and the documents in this case. The UNDT also found...

Outcome: The application was rejected. The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the implementation of the contested decision would cause her irreparable damage.

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, having considered the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that everything pointed to a suspect reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract. The Respondent did not give a clear reason for non-renewal, even after the Applicant specifically requested for it. The Tribunal, thus concluded that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract was prima facie unlawful. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant’s contract was to expire on 29 February 2012. The Applicant had...

The Tribunal found that the Assistant Secretary-General had conducted a fair review and had not merely rubber-stamped the Executive Secretary’s recommendation and that some of the allegations appeared well-founded so that in principle consideration of administrative leave was not improper. However, the feasibility of redeployment was not properly considered by the Executive Secretary, who had informed the ASG that there were no suitable posts available and that it would in any event be costly to redeploy the Applicant. In fact it appeared that there was a post available, to which the Applicant...

In the absence of a decision to abolish the post, there can be no suspension of such decision. The Tribunal finds the Applicant has failed to articulate 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 of his success in the substantive case. The application for suspension of action would therefore fail on this ground alone. There was not a single averment regarding the prima facie unlawfulness of the alleged decision to abolish the post other than generalisations made regarding an attempted...

The Applicant contends that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was based on irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism and that it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of ST/AI/2010/5, however, he failed to give particulars of the irregularities, errors, omissions and favoritism which he alleged made the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract unlawful. The Applicant has failed to satisfy the first requirement of a suspension of action application, which is to show the prima facie unlawfulness of the contested decision.