�鶹��ý

In the present judgment, UNDT found that, in light of the circumstances of this case, the three months’ net base salary paid to the Applicant for the lack of due process on the recommendation of the JAB report was insufficient. UNDT found the procedural unfairness to be so grave that it warranted additional compensation in the amount of USD15,000 for the breach of the Applicant’s procedural rights. With respect to compensation for actual economic loss, UNDT held that the Respondent shall compensate the Applicant for the actual economic loss incurred by her and that the actual economic loss...

ST/AI/292, dated 15 July 1982, provides measures in relation to the filing of adverse materials in personnel records, which measures were supposed to be interim in nature. In the context of the current framework of norms, ST/AI/292 alone does not provide adequate “rebuttal” procedures for short-term staff. The creation of two classes of short-term staff which potentially occurs via ST/AI/2002/3, based on management discretion is not fair; where the provisions of ST/AI/2002/3 are applied to some short-term staff and not others, this violates the doctrine of equal treatment in like circumstances...

The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. The contested decision had not yet been implemented, as the head of the department had simply communicated by phone his selection to the successful candidate and the latter had merely sent an email expressing his “great interest” in the job. The Tribunal found that this did not amount to an official offer by the Administration followed by an unconditional acceptance by the candidate. The Tribunal considered that the impending appointment of the successful candidate conferred urgency to the matter; that the contested decision, if...

Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

Whether the decision being contested is the one taken by OHRM to separate the Applicant from service, or the earlier decision taken by UNSPC, or the pending decision of the ABCC, there is currently no case that is pending management evaluation. There is also no substantive application before the Tribunal in relation to which this request for interim relief could be considered. In any event, art. 10.2 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute provides that a suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision may not be granted in cases of termination, which includes separation...

Receivability of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: It results from article 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute that the Tribunal is not in a position to rule on an application for suspension of action, pending management evaluation, on a decision, if copies of the decision in question or the request for management evaluation have not been submitted. Compliance with orders: A party to a proceeding has a duty to comply with an order of the Tribunal and particularly an interlocutory case management order pursuant to Article 19. To persist in disobeying such orders...

The Tribunal found that no interim relief could be ordered either under art. 2.2 or art. 10.2 of its Statute. No management evaluation was ongoing at the time of the application and thus no suspension of action could be ordered under art. 2.2 of the Statute. Further, as no application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute has been filed by the Applicant, no interim relief could be ordered under art. 10.2 of the Statute. The Tribunal noted that, even if the Applicant filed an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute in addition to the present application for suspension of...

Application for suspension of action pending management evaluation in disciplinary matters: It is clear from a plain reading of article 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute, article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure and staff rule 11.2 that the two former provisions apply only where management evaluation is required. In the instant case, the contested decision is a disciplinary measure which can be challenged before the Tribunal without first seeking management evaluation. Thus, the Tribunal cannot rely on these provisions to order the requested suspension of action pending management evaluation...

The proposed competitive process was necessitated by the ending of funding for the Capital Master Plan (“CMP”), a large-scale long-term renovation of the United Nations Headquarters Complex in New York. According to the Respondent, the Applicants’ posts are funded through CMP; the Applicants dispute this. The main issue in this case is whether the contested decision to subject the Applicants to the ad hoc competitive process test is lawful. The Tribunal found that the ad hoc competitive process announced in April 2012 was unlawful and ordered rescission of the decision to carry it out.

Renewal: Although staff members do not have an automatic right to renewal, they have a right to a fair consideration for renewal and for a decision based on proper reasons.Renewal, non-renewal, and limitations under art. 10.2 of the Statute: Staff rule 9.6(b) provides that “[s]eparation as a result of … expiration of appointment … shall not be regarded as a termination within the meaning of the Staff Rules”. It is clear that non-renewal decisions are not covered by art. 10.2 of the Statute as they are not a form of termination.Selection of S-1 and S-2 level staff: There appear to be no rules...