¹ú²úAV

The contested decision was to go into effect on 1 June 2012. The initial papers were received by the Tribunal on 29 May 2012, and the Applicant subsequently re-filed her papers as proper application on 30 May 2012. The UNDT found that the urgency in this case was created by the Applicant as she was aware of the contested decision at least since 13 April 2012, and yet filed her proper application only two working days before the decision was to be implemented, providing no explanation for not filing it earlier. As the condition of particular urgency was not met, the UNDT did not find it...

Assessment of irreparable damage in relation to non-selection decisions: The applicant was not the only recommended candidate and, therefore, it could not be concluded that he would have been selected for the litigious post. Accordingly, he failed to show that the implementation of the contested decision would cause him irreparable damage.

The Respondent is in breach of the first order for suspension of action (UNDT/2012/029) – merely providing a different reason for the non-renewal does not obviate the need to abide by the original order.

The UNDT found that the Applicant had previously resigned from a temporary appointment and was reemployed on the understanding given to her by MINUSTAH that the period of 364 days, following which she may have to take a break in service, would start running on the date of her new temporary appointment. The UNDT found that the conditions for a suspension of action were met and ordered suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision. Outcome: The UNDT ordered suspension of action on the contested decision pending management evaluation.

The Applicant submitted that she has a legitimate expectation of renewal and that the decision not to renew her contract was motivated by extraneous considerations. The Respondent submitted that the decision was taken as a result of UNMIT’s downsizing in view of its eventual closure. The UNDT found that the requirement of urgency was satisfied. The UNDT found that the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness was also satisfied as the reason provided by the Respondent in support of the contested decision appeared to be unsupported by the facts and the documents in this case. The UNDT also found...

The Tribunal found that the Assistant Secretary-General had conducted a fair review and had not merely rubber-stamped the Executive Secretary’s recommendation and that some of the allegations appeared well-founded so that in principle consideration of administrative leave was not improper. However, the feasibility of redeployment was not properly considered by the Executive Secretary, who had informed the ASG that there were no suitable posts available and that it would in any event be costly to redeploy the Applicant. In fact it appeared that there was a post available, to which the Applicant...