The Tribunal took note of the fact that the management evaluation was completed on 29 September 2011, thus rendering moot the application for suspension of action filed on 28 September 2011. The application for suspension of action was thus rejected.
UNDT held that the application did not meet the test as set out in Article 2.2 of the UNDT Statute, specifically noting that it failed to meet the requirements for irreparable damage and particular urgency. UNDT therefore considered it unnecessary to determine the issue of prima facie unlawfulness.
The decision to terminate the Applicant’s contract was taken at the Mission level, without the delegated authority required by ST/AI/234 and was therefore unlawful. The post facto approval of the decision by the ASG/OHRM does not cure the unlawfulness.The Secretary-General’s action of entering into a contract of employment with the Applicant for the reason only of securing termination indemnities for the Applicant does not appear to be supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rules or any known principles of an employment contract.The termination of the Applicant’s appointment as a result of...
The decision to terminate the Applicant’s contract was taken at the Mission level, without the delegated authority required by ST/AI/234 and was therefore unlawful. The post facto approval of the decision by the ASG/OHRM does not cure the unlawfulness. The Secretary-General’s action of entering into a contract of employment with the Applicant for the reason only of securing termination indemnities for the Applicant does not appear to be supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rules or any known principles of an employment contract. The termination of the Applicant’s appointment as a result of...
It was not disputed by the Applicant that what he contested was not a decision which was actually made. Rather, he challenged a possible decision (to require him to take a break in service) which would most likely be made by the United Nations Office at Geneva. The Tribunal considered that no decision had been made at the time when the Applicant filed his application. Consequently, the application was found irreceivable.
The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.
The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.
The Respondent appeared to have a good reason for cancelling the Applicant’s leave. That having been said, however, the manner in which the Applicant was informed of that decision could have been done in a much better way. Considering the fact that the Applicant’s supervisor had only three days earlier, on 9 August 2011, approved his leave, his one-line directive cancelling the Applicant’s leave was not only callous and dismissive but most insensitive. This managerial shortcoming does not, by itself, render the decision prima facie unlawful.Although some harm is caused to the Applicant in...
The Tribunal recalled that the burden of proof lay on the Applicant and there was nothing on record to show that the contested decision was made on the ground of improper motives against the Applicant. On the contrary, it found that OCHA had acted in good faith.
An application for a suspension of action is in the nature of an injunction, the purpose of which is to maintain the status quo between parties until the order lapses. Article 10 of the UNDT Statute states in no uncertain terms that there is no appeal against such an order. The Tribunal stated that the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (“UNAT”) had opened the door to an appeal against a Suspension of Action (“SOA”) decision by stating that the prohibition to an SOA appeal against a decision was an exception. UNAT meant thereby that it would be left at the discretion of the UNAT whether an appeal...
