Â鶹´«Ã½

The Tribunal concludes that the decision appears prima facie to be unlawful. The instant case meets the requirement of urgency. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s assessment of the potential irreparable harm the implementation of the break in service would cause, particularly in light of the visa implications and his children’s educational needs. The Tribunal orders suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision requiring the Applicant to take a mandatory break in service after the expiration of his fixed-term contract and prior to a...

UNDT held that the impunged decision was prima facie unlawful. UNDT held that, in the absence of some emergency situation, the Organization must keep staff informed of changes in key legislation and with sufficient time for the staff to take steps to find alternative employment, accommodation and address their visa status, particularly where changes will affect so many staff and their families. UNDT held that, since the Applicant only became aware, on 27 October 2011, of a decision that would be implemented on 31 October 2011, and that the Applicant’s filing of his application was prompt and...

The contested decision was not, in itself, unfavourable to the Applicant since it did not prevent her from applying for the position again. The only decision which the Applicant would have had a legitimate interest in contesting, was the decision not to appoint her to the position she encumbered after its reclasification as Senior Career Management Assistant at the G-5 level. However, the Applicant did not contest this decision. The application was not receivable, since the Applicant did not have any legitimate interest in requesting the suspension of the decision to readvertise the position...

UNDT held that the application was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit his request for management evaluation in due time. UNDT rejected the application for suspension of action.

UNDT noted that the Applicant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. UNDT held that the application was irreceivable as time-barred. UNDT rejected the application.

UNDT nted that the Applicants’ requests for management evaluation were submitted after the applicable deadline had already expired. UNDT noted that, while the Applicants were active and diligent in bringing their concerns and grievances to higher authorities, these actions did not constitute sending a request for management evaluation. UNDT held that the application for suspension of action was irreceivable as time-barred. UNDT rejected the application for suspension of action.

On 31 December 2010 the Tribunal granted suspension of action pending management evaluation, pursuant to Order No. 338 (NY/2010). UNDT held that it was evident that the decision not to renew the Applicant was influenced by at least some improper considerations that, as a result, it was satisfied of the prima facie unlawfulness of the decision. UNDT also held that the situation held particular urgency. UNDT further held that, given the criticisms made of the Applicant’s performance, it was reasonable to conclude that if the contested decision was not suspended, irreparable harm to the Applicant...

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...