��DT/2011/176

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��DT held that the Applicant satisfied the test that the decision appeared to be prima facie unlawful. ��DT held that the Applicant satisfied the urgency test. ��DT noted that the decision would leave five days, from the date of the Judgment, for the Applicant to obtain temporary employment for a period of three months. ��DT held that a stay in the implementation of the decision, albeit for the limited period of an additional 25 calendar days, until the management evaluation is due on 7 November 2011, would serve the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Respondent to carry out a proper review at the stage of management evaluation, whilst at the same time affording the Applicant additional time to seek alternative employment, should she fail in her application for management evaluation of the contested decision. ��DT held that the Applicant satisfied the irreparable damage test. ��DT noted that loss of employment is to be seen not merely in terms of financial loss, for which compensation may be awarded, but also in terms of loss of career opportunities. This is particularly the case in employment within the United Nations which is highly valued. Once out of the system the prospect of returning to a comparable post within the United Nations is significantly reduced. The damage to career opportunities and the consequential effect on one��s life chances cannot adequately be compensated by money. ��DT held that the Application succeeded.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to extend her temporary appointment beyond 18 October 2011. She submitted an application for a suspension of action regarding this decision.

Legal Principle(s)

When it comes to applications for suspension of action, ��DT 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. ��DT 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 ��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

Kananura

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement