±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had made out a case for prima facie unlawfulness, but that the other two requirements for suspension of action ¨C urgency and irreparable harm - were not fulfilled. It considered that the selection decision had already been implemented pursuant to Section 10.2 of ST/AI/2010/3 and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to provide interim injunctive relief. The Tribunal observed the irregularity whereby a non-selected candidate cannot have known that the decision has been implemented and is powerless under Article 2.2 of the Statute to suspend the action...

Particular urgency: The requirement of particular urgency will not be satisfied if the urgency was created or caused by the applicant.

The proposed competitive process was necessitated by the ending of funding for the Capital Master Plan (¡°CMP¡±), a large-scale long-term renovation of the United Nations Headquarters Complex in New York. According to the Respondent, the Applicants¡¯ posts are funded through CMP; the Applicants dispute this. The main issue in this case is whether the contested decision to subject the Applicants to the ad hoc competitive process test is lawful. The Tribunal found that the ad hoc competitive process announced in April 2012 was unlawful and ordered rescission of the decision to carry it out.

The inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal confers it with power to deal with contemptuous conduct and is necessary to safeguard its judicial functions. This power need not be defined in the Tribunal¡¯s Statute or in its Rules of Procedure. Willful disobedience of the Tribunal¡¯s orders is contempt and is a direct attack upon the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and its power to undertake the responsibilities with which it has been entrusted in its Statute by the General Assembly. ±¬ÁÏÍøON management while disregarding the authority of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in Villamoran on the duty of parties to comply with...

Receivability ¨C Outcome of management evaluation: Except in the case foreseen in article 8.1(d)(i)b of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, Applicants have to await the outcome of the management evaluation process before filing an application with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations, but rather a member of ±¬ÁÏÍø police force (±¬ÁÏÍøPOL), which was an international law enforcement entity separately administered outside the ±¬ÁÏÍø Secretariat. The Tribunal therefore, held that in view of the established law, articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Statute of the Tribunal, the application was not receivable. The Tribunal was not competent to entertain it. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as non-receivable.

Renewal of fixed-term appointments: A decision to extend the fixed-term appointment of a staff member for a short period of time contains in fact two decisions, on the hand a decision to extend, on the other, a decision to set a date beyond which the staff member¡¯s appointment will not be extended. Receivability of application against a renewal decision: It follows from staff rule 4.13(c) that when the fixed-term appointment of a staff member expires, that staff member has no right to renewal. Accordingly, a decision to extend a fixed-term appointment, even for a short period of time, is not a...

Compensation: For an administrative decision to give rise to compensation, the Tribunal must first determine that such decision is unlawful. Right to work: Staff members not only have a duty but also a right to do the work for which they have been recruited.

The burden of establishing bias or the perception of bias lies with the Applicant once the Respondent has made a minimal showing of regularity in the recruitment process. The Applicant must establish with clear and convincing evidence that he was not given full and fair consideration for the vacancy. Whilst the Tribunal was surprised that a person in the Applicant¡¯s position and with the Applicant¡¯s experience should not be recommended, it was unable to conclude that the Applicant had not been given full and fair consideration, particularly in view of the fact that some 13 other candidates...

t. The applicant submits that her request for suspension of action is timely as the contested administrative decision has yet to be implemented. Legal Pronouncement: The decision to select a successful candidate is implemented upon the candidate¡¯s unconditional acceptance of the offer presented to him which results in the formation of a binding employment contract between the candidate and the Organization. The formation of the employment contract, which results in the implementation of the post selection decision, will precede the date on which a successful candidate will assume his/her new...

Receivability: For an application to be receivable, it must clearly identify the contested decision and be preceded by a request for management evaluation, where management evaluation is required.

Receivability/Waive or suspend MEU deadlines: It has been established in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (±¬ÁÏÍøAT) jurisprudence as well in the provisions of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT does not have the power to suspend or waive deadlines regardingtime limits for management evaluation. The Tribunal, being a creature of statutory law, cannot go beyond its mandate.If there was concrete evidence to show that the Ombudsman was seized of the matter within the stipulated time limits and if there was evidence showing the date on which the Ombudsman acknowledged receipt of the matter...

Standard of review for interpretation (1): A request for interpretation of a judgment is receivable only if the operative part of it gives rise to uncertainty or ambiguity about its meaning or import.Standard of review for interpretation (2): It would be contrary to the letter and spirit of article 12.3 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute to seek a reversal or modification of a final judgment under cover of interpretation. The correctness of a judgment is not a matter to be dealt with in this framework, as interpreting, by definition, means shedding light on the original meaning, as opposed to altering...

The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was challenging the receivability of the application based on two notifications to the Applicant i.e. the email of 22 March 2010 and the letter of 21 October 2010. With regard to the email of 22 March 2010, the Tribunal held that the email was a mere request or a piece of advice to the Applicant with regard to the permanent residency policy, and not an administrative decision. The Administration was merely advising or requesting further information from the Applicant in order to be in a position to process and presumably finalise the two year appointment...

Tribunal¡¯s review of eligibility for benefits: The Secretary-General has no discretion to grant or deny a benefit provided for in the Staff Regulations and Rules and is bound, in this respect, by the applicable rules. Accordingly, when the matter before the Tribunal concerns the refusal to grant a benefit, the Tribunal may only examine whether the staff member was eligible for, or entitled to, such benefit, without taking into account the grounds for refusal provided by the Administration. The fact that other staff members in the same situation may have been granted the disputed benefit is...

Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary steps such as the choice of a legal basis for a staff member¡¯s performance appraisal or the capacity in which a reporting officer signs off on a performance appraisal can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant conceded, in his closing submission, that the distribution and storage of pornographic material using the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP equipment constituted misconduct. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the characterization of this charge settled and did not go on to examine it. On due process, the Tribunal found that the investigation was hasty and afforded the; Applicant little opportunity to prepare for his case. On proportionality, the Tribunal held that the lack of due process shown on the part of the Respondent while investigating the Applicant must necessarily count to...

Judicial review of disciplinary cases: It was not required or expected of the staff members under the former system of justice to file separate appeals regarding each intermittent stage of the disciplinary process. It is impossible to artificially split the disciplinary process into separate stages after its completion and file separate appeals with the Tribunal with respect to each stage, expecting that they would be considered piece-meal. Moreover, even if that were possible, the Applicant would have been required to submit separate appeals to the JDC or file separate requests for...

Prima facie case: When the Respondent fails to respond to a submission of the Applicant and to the relevant evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal is left with the inference that the submission is correct.Urgency: The matter was imminent as the Applicant¡¯s contract ended one day after the issuance of the Judgment. The urgency was due to the Respondent¡¯s failure to properly ensure that a management evaluation would be ready before the scheduled day of separation.Irreparable harm: The harm that the Applicant contended, namely the loss of career prospects after having served with the...