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.
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.
Application for suspension of action pending management evaluation in disciplinary matters: It is clear from a plain reading of article 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute, article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure and staff rule 11.2 that the two former provisions apply only where management evaluation is required. In the instant case, the contested decision is a disciplinary measure which can be challenged before the Tribunal without first seeking management evaluation. Thus, the Tribunal cannot rely on these provisions to order the requested suspension of action pending management evaluation...
Date of implementation of the contested decision: Although the Tribunal has taken different approaches with respect to the date of implementation of selection decisions pursuant to ST/AI/2010/3, a selection decision must be considered as implemented once the Organization receives the selected candidate’s unconditional acceptance of the offer of appointment.
Particular urgency: The requirement of particular urgency will not be satisfied if the urgency was created or caused by the applicant.
The 蘑菇视频DT 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...
t. The applicant submits that her request for suspension of action is timely as the contested administrative decision has yet to be implemented. Legal Pronouncement: The decision to select a successful candidate is implemented upon the candidate’s unconditional acceptance of the offer presented to him which results in the formation of a binding employment contract between the candidate and the Organization. The formation of the employment contract, which results in the implementation of the post selection decision, will precede the date on which a successful candidate will assume his/her new...
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...
