����AV

UNAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. UNAT held that, regardless of whether UNDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute precluded an appeal to UNAT if UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Order.

UNAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained UNDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the UNDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

Two types of interim measures - with different functions, preconditions, restrictions and scope - have to be clearly distinguished. Art. 13 RoP has to be applied exclusively during the pendency of the management evaluation, whereas art. 14 RoP is appropriate only during judicial review in terms of art. 2 and 8 Statute; in short: it is either 13 or 14 – never both. Orders based on art. 13 RoP become ineffective with the end of management evaluation. The present application had to be considered under art. 13 RoP since the contested decision of 12 October 2009 was released under new conditions...

The application was not receivable under article 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure because at the time the application was filed, there was no management evaluation pending. It was only on 21 October 2009 that the Tribunal received a copy of the request for management evaluation of the decision of 5 October 2009. The application was not receivable under article 14 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure because the administrative decision dated 5 October 2009 to fill the post related to an appointment and could not be the subject of interim relief in view of the exception contained in article 14...

The Applicant addressed a letter dated 29 May 2009 to the Secretary-General requesting him to “reverse that decision” but no mention was made of the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract because it was only on 30 June 2009 that the Applicant was informed that his contract would not be renewed beyond 30 September 2009. The Applicant sought to establish that he had in fact requested a review of the decision and referred to an email he had sent to the Registrar of the ICTR in which he informed him that he was contesting the decision not to renew his contract. That email was dated 27 April 2009...

Unlawfulness: There has to be evidence to establish that, at the very least, it is probable that the non-renewal decision of itself was unlawful. Irreparable harm: Harm is irreparable if it can be shown that suspension of the action is the only way to ensure that the applicant’s rights are observed. Although the applicant has expectation of fair treatment, any breach of due process in this case is capable of being compensated financially or by correction of the performance record. Should he be ultimately vindicated, he can get compensation for any losses arising out of defects in the...

The applicant failed to show that her case met the criteria under art. 2.2 of the Statute and art. 13 of the Rules of Procedure. Outcome: Application was rejected.

UNDT noted that it was established that UNAMI decided not to renew the Applicant’s appointment on the grounds of poor performance, while the appraisal performance procedure for the concerned staff member, at least for 2008/2009, had not been regularly completed. UNDT found that, in light of the case file, the decision under review appeared as prima facie illegal. UNDT found that the urgency for the Judge to rule on the Applicant’s request was established since the implementation of the contested decision would result in the Applicant being excluded from the UN staff as of 18 August 2009. UNDT...

Receivability of the decision not to renew the appointment: In this case, the triggering point should have been the moment when the staff member was made aware by the Administration that there was no reasonable chance or possibility of renewal. Thus, it is the date when the applicant was notified of the termination of her contract; therefore, the application is receivable. Articles 13 and 14 of the Rules of Procedure: Since there is an ongoing management evaluation of the decision not to renew the applicant’s appointment, the applicable interim measure to be ordered would be that under article...

UNDT held that the application was receivable because the time limit for management evaluation had not yet expired and management evaluation was still pending. UNDT took note of the findings of the JAB Panel, which recommended suspension of action following the Applicant’s request to this end dated 22 June 2009, and of the Deputy Secretary-General’s memorandum by which such suspension was granted. UNDT noted that both the Panel and the Secretary-General came to the conclusion that the questioned decision was prima facie unlawful and that the Applicant’s reassignment, if implemented, would...