UNDT/2011/185, Helminger
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 temporary appointment.
The decision requiring the Applicant to take a mandatory break in service after the expiration of his fixed-term contract and prior to a temporary appointment.
There is no obligation to require a response from the Respondent before deciding the request. For staff on fixed-term appointments who are being reappointed under temporary appointments following the expiration of their fixed-term appointments, there is no requirement, in law, to take a break in service—be it 1 day or 31 days—prior to the temporary appointment. For the prima facie unlawfulness test to be satisfied, it is enough for an applicant to present a fairly arguable case that the contested decision was influenced by some improper considerations, was procedurally or substantively defective, or was contrary to the Administration’s obligation to ensure that is decisions are proper and made in good faith”.