Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

The Tribunal concludes that the decision appears prima facie to be unlawful. The instant case meets the requirement of urgency. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant¡¯s assessment of the potential irreparable harm the implementation of the break in service would cause, particularly in light of the visa implications and his children¡¯s educational needs. The Tribunal orders 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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the impunged decision was prima facie unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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...

On 31 December 2010 the Tribunal granted suspension of action pending management evaluation, pursuant to Order No. 338 (NY/2010). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was evident that the decision not to renew the Applicant was influenced by at least some improper considerations that, as a result, it was satisfied of the prima facie unlawfulness of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the situation held particular urgency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further held that, given the criticisms made of the Applicant¡¯s performance, it was reasonable to conclude that if the contested decision was not suspended, irreparable harm to the Applicant...

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.

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...

i. Prima facie unlawfulness: The Tribunal found that prima facie unlawfulness had been established because the Applicant identified anomalies in the processes used by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON. ii. Particular urgency: The Tribunal noted that the selection decision had been communicated to the selected candidate by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON before the Applicant filed her application. As the contested decision had been implemented, the element of particular urgency had not been met. iii. Irreparable damage: The Tribunal found that the Applicant established irreparable damage in that there would be harm to her reputation and career...

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent¡¯s decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment was prima facie unlawful having been motivated by erroneous factors. The Tribunal thus held that the Applicant had met his burden of proof by establishing that he had an arguable case of unlawfulness. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant¡¯s contract was to expire on 9 November 2012. On irreparable damage, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was approaching the retirement age. The...

Management evaluation: The Tribunal can only suspend an administrative decision that is subject to an ongoing management evaluation.Cancellation of vacancy announcements are administrative decisions that have been implemented and therefore can not be subject of a suspension of action application. The Applicant had not sought management evaluation of the ongoing selection process as such the Tribunal found that it could not be subject to a suspension of action application.

Receivability of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: It results from article 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute that the Tribunal is not in a position to rule on an application for suspension of action, pending management evaluation, on a decision, if copies of the decision in question or the request for management evaluation have not been submitted. Compliance with orders: A party to a proceeding has a duty to comply with an order of the Tribunal and particularly an interlocutory case management order pursuant to Article 19. To persist in disobeying such orders...