UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
As to the appeal of Order No. 46 (GVA/2025) dismissing Mr. Turcanu’s motion seeking the suspension of the contested decision pending judicial review of his substantive application, the Appeals Tribunal recalled that pursuant to Article 10(2) of the UNDT Statute and Article 14 of the UNDT Rules, the UNDT may not suspend the implementation of a contested decision in cases of appointment, promotion or termination. It also recalled that a decision not to renew an appointment was a matter concerned with the “appointment” of a staff member. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that under the terms of Article 10(2), the UNDT was therefore not empowered to issue temporary relief, and it did not exceed its jurisdiction or competence in denying the motion. Mr. Turcanu’s appeal against the order was therefore not receivable.
Turning to the interlocutory appeal against the President’s Order No. 44 (GVA/2025) denying Mr. Turcanu’s motion for recusal, the Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Turcanu had not demonstrated that, in the determination of his application for recusal, the UNDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction, its competence or that it committed an irremediable error. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the appeal of the motion for recusal was therefore also not receivable.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
By Order No. 46 (GVA/2025), the UNDT denied Mr. Turcanu's motion seeking the suspension of the decision to abolish the post he encumbered and not to renew his fixed-term appointment pending judicial review of his substantive application. The UNDT held that under Article 10(2) of the UNDT Statute, it could not grant temporary relief in cases of appointment and therefore found that it did not have jurisdiction to suspend the contested decision pending determination of the case on its merits. The UNDT further found that Mr. Turcanu had failed to meet the cumulative criteria required under Article 10(2) of the UNDT Statute.
By Order No. 44 (GVA/2025), the UNDT President denied Mr. Turcanu's motion seeking recusal of the UNDT Judge assigned to his case. The UNDT President found that Mr. Turcanu had not supported any allegation of an actual conflict of interest and that the claim that Judge Sun’s previous ruling in another case of Mr. Turcanu would give the appearance of impairing the Judge’s ability to independently and impartially adjudicate the instant case lacked merit. The UNDT President found that Judge Sun had no conflict of interest in Mr. Turcanu’s matters related to the case and accordingly dismissed the motion for his recusal.
Mr. Turcanu appealed both Orders.
Legal Principle(s)
Only appeals against final judgments of the UNDT are receivable by the Appeals Tribunal. The only exception to this rule is where the UNDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, or where an error by the UNDT is irremediable by a final UNDT judgment, or on appeal therefrom, and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the UNDT’s order or other decision to remain in effect.
A decision not to renew an appointment is a matter concerned with the “appointment” of a staff member,. The nonrenewal of such appointment and the staff member’s separation from service, are indistinguishable for purposes of an application for suspension of action under Article 10(2) of the UNDT Statute.
An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings, with no need in such an application to prove actual bias; it is enough that it is shown that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias.
An application for recusal is generally approached as one of an interlocutory nature; and, an applicant for recusal is not, as a matter of right, entitled to prosecute the refusal of such application on appeal immediately.