����AV

Receivability of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: It results from article 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute read in conjunction with staff rule 11.2(c) that a request for suspension of action during the pendency of the management evaluation may only be receivable if the request for management evaluation has been submitted in due time.

Receivability ratione materiae of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: In order for the Tribunal to act upon an application for suspension of action submitted pursuant to article 2.2 of its Statute, an “administrative decision” must be at issue. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a challengeable administrative decision is a decision taken by the Administration which carries direct legal consequences in respect of the applicant’s rights under the terms of his or her appointment or contract of employment.

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...

Assessment of prima facie unlawfulness: In the course of suspension of action proceedings sufficient proof of the facts must be presented in view of the strict time limits governing the suspension of action procedure.

Particular urgency: The requirement of particular urgency will not be satisfied if the urgency was created or caused by the applicant.

The UNDT found that the Applicant had made out a case for prima facie unlawfulness, but that the other two requirements for suspension of action – urgency and irreparable harm - were not fulfilled. It considered that the selection decision had already been implemented pursuant to Section 10.2 of ST/AI/2010/3 and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to provide interim injunctive relief. The Tribunal observed the irregularity whereby a non-selected candidate cannot have known that the decision has been implemented and is powerless under Article 2.2 of the Statute to suspend the action...

Prima facie case: When the Respondent fails to respond to a submission of the Applicant and to the relevant evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal is left with the inference that the submission is correct.Urgency: The matter was imminent as the Applicant’s contract ended one day after the issuance of the Judgment. The urgency was due to the Respondent’s failure to properly ensure that a management evaluation would be ready before the scheduled day of separation.Irreparable harm: The harm that the Applicant contended, namely the loss of career prospects after having served with the...

Prima facie case: When the Respondent fails to respond to a submission of the Applicant and to the relevant evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal is left with the inference that the submission is correct.Urgency: The matter was imminent as the Applicant’s contract ended one day after the issuance of the Judgment. The urgency was due to the Respondent’s failure to properly ensure that a management evaluation would be ready before the scheduled day of separation.Irreparable harm: The harm that the Applicant contended, namely the loss of career prospects after having served with the...

This is particularly the case in employment within the United Nations which is highly valued. Once out of the system the prospect of returning to a comparable post within the United Nations is significantly reduced. The damage to career opportunities and the consequential effect on one’s life chances cannot adequately be compensated by money. Although the Applicant’s suspension of action did not specify a date until which the requested suspension of action should be applied, the UNDT granted it but limited it in time, per art. 13 of the Rules of Procedure of the Dispute Tribunal, to the...

The non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment was predicated on her harassment complaint of 12 April 2012 against her supervisor. The Tribunal finds and holds that the three elements for a grant of an order for suspension of action have been established in this case.