Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant has no interest in the maintenance of the proceedings, therefore the case is closed.

The Tribunal took note of the fact that the management evaluation was completed on 29 September 2011, thus rendering moot the application for suspension of action filed on 28 September 2011. The application for suspension of action was thus rejected.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application did not meet the test as set out in Article 2.2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, specifically noting that it failed to meet the requirements for irreparable damage and particular urgency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore considered it unnecessary to determine the issue of prima facie unlawfulness.

Noting that the Applicant had neither filed an application on the merits nor any other application with regard to this case file, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT closed the case.

It was not disputed by the Applicant that what he contested was not a decision which was actually made. Rather, he challenged a possible decision (to require him to take a break in service) which would most likely be made by the United Nations Office at Geneva. The Tribunal considered that no decision had been made at the time when the Applicant filed his application. Consequently, the application was found irreceivable.

The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute states in no uncertain terms that there is no appeal against such an order. The Tribunal stated that the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (¡°Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡±) 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT meant thereby that it would be left at the discretion of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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.