The Tribunal recalled that the burden of proof lay on the Applicant and there was nothing on record to show that the contested decision was made on the ground of improper motives against the Applicant. On the contrary, it found that OCHA had acted in good faith.
An application for a suspension of action is in the nature of an injunction, the purpose of which is to maintain the status quo between parties until the order lapses. Article 10 of the UNDT Statute states in no uncertain terms that there is no appeal against such an order. The Tribunal stated that the 麻豆APP Appeals Tribunal (“UNAT”) had opened the door to an appeal against a Suspension of Action (“SOA”) decision by stating that the prohibition to an SOA appeal against a decision was an exception. UNAT meant thereby that it would be left at the discretion of the UNAT whether an appeal...
The Tribunal found: that the Applicant had established a case of prima facie unlawfulness; that the element of urgency was met and the harm suffered to the; Applicant’s reputation and career prospects if the decision was implemented could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages.
Article 2 first confers the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to determine, in any application filed by an individual before it, whether the contested decision is an “administrative decision” and whether it was made in compliance with or contrary to an individual’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. In other words, it is for the Tribunal to determine, inter alia, in any given case, whether a contested decision qualifies as an “administrative decision” or not. As a matter of law and practice, a “friend-of-court” brief is a legal position on the issues for determination before the...
Considering that the Respondent’s allegation that the Applicant’s contract was not renewed for unsatisfactory performance during the period 2009-2010, the Tribunal noted that the rating “Partially meets performance expectations” had been considered by the Rebuttal Panel as unfair and changed to “Fully meets performance expectations”. In the light of this finding the Tribunal took the view that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract on the ground of unsatisfactory performance for the year 20092010 was prima facie unlawful.
The Applicant claimed that: the decision was discriminatory and the decision-maker sought retribution for, inter alia, the Applicant’s failure to choose the decision-maker’s favoured candidate in a selection process; the matter was urgent due to the impending expiration of the Applicant’s contract; and the decision would cause irreparable harm because the Applicant would lose his job and current livelihood. The Respondent contended that the application should be rejected outright because the Applicant did not pursue his claim with due diligence. The Respondent further argued that the Applicant...
The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the overall test for a suspension of action with respect to that decision. With respect to the decision to require her to take a break in service prior to her placement on a temporary appointment, the Tribunal found that the three requirements of art. 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute were satisfied. The Tribunal found that, 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...
The impugned decision was suspended until when the matter would be heard and determined on the merits.
The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not raised a prima facie case as to warrant a suspension of action.
When reviewing the conditions set out in Article 13 of the RoP, the Tribunal considered whether, in the light of the allegation of non-performance, the proper procedure relating to performance and e-PAS had been followed. It found that the decision was prima facie unlawful because the Respondent did not thoroughly follow its own rules and/or practices (a) by deciding not to renew the Applicant’s appointment without allowing the rebuttal process to be completed, and (b) by its failure to ensure a timely implementation of the 2010-2011 e- PAS.
