51�Թ�

Pursuant to Article 2.2 of the Dispute 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. All three conditions must be satisfied for a suspension of action to be granted. The Applicant challenged the lawfulness of the decision on two grounds: a) The UNDP Legal Framework was inconsistent with staff rule 10.4. b) The Assistant Secretary-General, Assistant Administrator, and Director of the Bureau for Management Services (ASG/BMS) did not conduct an independent assessment of the evidence but instead relied on OIOS’s evaluation. With respect to the first claim, the Tribunal examined paragraph 42 of the UNDP Legal Framework for Addressing Non-Compliance with UN Standards of Conduct, which permits placing a staff member on Administrative Leave Without Pay (ALWOP) when a preponderance of evidence supports the alleged misconduct and when such misconduct, if established, would warrant separation or dismissal. The Tribunal concluded that this provision was not inconsistent with staff rule 10.4. Regarding the second claim, while the record did not indicate that the ASG/BMS conducted her own independent assessment, her reliance on OIOS’s confirmation of a preponderance of evidence implied an endorsement of that assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s argument. As the contested decision did not meet the threshold of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to examine the remaining conditions for a suspension of action. The Applicant’s motion for anonymity The Tribunal reiterated that the internal justice system is guided by the principles of transparency and accountability. Any departure from these principles such as granting anonymity requires the Applicant to meet a high threshold. In this case, the Tribunal determined that the Applicant’s concerns regarding reputational harm were insufficient to justify anonymization. Accordingly, the motion for anonymity was denied.