��DT/2011/146

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

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 ��DT Statute states in no uncertain terms that there is no appeal against such an order. The Tribunal stated that the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (��AT��) 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. ��AT meant thereby that it would be left at the discretion of the ��AT whether an appeal against a SOA decision would be received or not. This opinion of the ��AT 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 ��DT Rules of Procedure and Article 8 of the ��DT Statute that specifically conferred a power on the ��DT 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.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant sought a suspension of action of the decision not to renew his appointment beyond 31 July 2011.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant��s request for suspension of action of the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment beyond 30 June 2011.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT 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

Rawat

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement