Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 against a SOA decision would be received or not. This opinion of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was being used by the Office of Legal Affairs (¡°OLA¡±), to file appeals against SOA decisions. The strategy of filing an appeal had been construed as operating as a stay of the suspension decision thus putting an end to the status quo; between parties with the result that the Administration had the full power to implement the much contested decision. The new found trend of the OLA boiled down to making a mockery of articles 13 and 14 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure and Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute that specifically conferred a power on the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to suspend an administrative action if the three conditions namely, unlawfulness, urgency and irreparable damage were satisfied. Two major consequences flowed from this. First, the power of the Tribunal to take an interim decision was being undermined and secondly the consequences for the staff member may be catastrophic from the point of view of his or her career. However unpalatable the reason sounded it was the blunt reality that the Tribunal had to face in the light of the new strategy of OLA.