±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

As indicated by the Respondent in his reply, the selected candidate signed the letter of appointment and assumed her functions on 19 June 2024. She further completed the onboarding formalities on 24 June 2024. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that it can no longer entertain the instant application, which was filed on 28 June 2024, thus after the contested decision has been implemented. Granting an injunction would require reversing the onboarding of the selected candidate, which it clearly cannot do.

Since the management evaluation in this case has been completed, one of the cumulative and mandatory conditions specified in art. 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute is not fulfilled. The Tribunal will therefore not examine if the remaining statutory requirements have been met, as the matter now lies moot.

An application for suspension of action can only be entertained under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal when the challenged contested decision is the subject of an ongoing management evaluation (see Onana 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-008, para. 19; Igbinedion 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-159, para. 20). In the present case, the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request was no longer pending. The evidence showed that the Deputy High Commissioner completed the management evaluation on 27 June 2024, and that the Applicant received the outcome of his management evaluation request the same day. Consequently, as the management...

Pursuant to Article 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may suspend the implementation of a contested administrative decision pending management evaluation if the Applicant demonstrates that: The decision appears prima facie unlawful, The matter is of particular urgency, and Implementation would cause irreparable harm. These requirements are cumulative, meaning all three must be satisfied for a suspension of action to be granted. In this case, the record indicated that the Applicant¡¯s temporary contract had been extended until 11 March 2024...

The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant¡¯s circumstances and has no intention of jeopardizing his health in any way. At the same time, it considers the Applicant¡¯s active participation in the proceedings essential to ensuring the fair adjudication of his case. The Tribunal concurs with the Respondent¡¯s assertion that ¡°the right to institute and pursue legal proceedings is contingent upon the individual exercising this right having a legitimate interest in initiating and sustaining legal action.¡± The Applicant voluntarily initiated these judicial proceedings and, as such, has a vested interest...