Â鶹´«Ã½

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.

The UNDT found that the non-renewal appeared to be based on a mission-wide retrenchment exercise and that it appeared that the Applicant served in an occupational group and against a functional title impacted by the downsizing of MINUSTAH. The UNDT found that there was no evidence before it to indicate that the panel responsible for carrying out a comparative review of the affected staff members erred in applying the agreed evaluation criteria when assessing the Applicant and other staff members in the related category.Outcome: The application for suspension of action was rejected.

Following the filing of the application for suspension of action, the Respondent filed a submission stating that UNAMA had agreed to allow the Applicant to retain a lien against her post and, accordingly, the application should be dismissed as moot. In response, the Applicant submitted to the Tribunal that, although UNAMA had agreed to grant her a lien on her post, as a result of this decision not made earlier, she would be placed on special leave without pay due to the exhaustion of her sick leave and annual leave days, pending finalization of arrangements for temporary employment in New York...

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...

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.

Outcome: The application was rejected. The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the implementation of the contested decision would cause her irreparable damage.