Ģ��ƵDT/2011/184

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵDT held that the impunged decision was prima facie unlawful. Ģ��ƵDT held that, in the absence of some emergency situation, the Organization must keep staff informed of changes in key legislation and with sufficient time for the staff to take steps to find alternative employment, accommodation and address their visa status, particularly where changes will affect so many staff and their families. Ģ��ƵDT held that, since the Applicant only became aware, on 27 October 2011, of a decision that would be implemented on 31 October 2011, and that the Applicant��s filing of his application was prompt and timeous, the case met the requirement of urgency. Ģ��ƵDT held that a mandatory period of one month��s unemployment in the circumstances of this case would cause the Applicant irreparable harm. Ģ��ƵDT accepted the Applicant��s assessment of the potential irreparable harm the implementation of the break in service would cause. Ģ��ƵDT ordered suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision requiring the Applicant to take a mandatory break in service after the expiration of his fixed-term contract and prior to a temporary appointment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision of 27 October 2011 to impose a 31-day break in service between the end of his fixed-term appointment on 31 October 2011 and his new temporary appointment. He filed an application for suspension of action of this decision.

Legal Principle(s)

When it comes to applications for suspension of action, Ģ��ƵDT has to consider: 1) whether the impugned decision appears to be prima facie unlawful; 2) whether the matter is of particular urgency; and 3) whether its implementation will cause the Applicant irreparable harm. Ģ��ƵDT must find that all three of these requirements have been met in order to suspend the action (implementation of the decision) in question.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Parekh

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement