It was not disputed by the Applicant that what he contested was not a decision which was actually made. Rather, he challenged a possible decision (to require him to take a break in service) which would most likely be made by the United Nations Office at Geneva. The Tribunal considered that no decision had been made at the time when the Applicant filed his application. Consequently, the application was found irreceivable.
The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.
The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.
The Respondent appeared to have a good reason for cancelling the Applicant’s leave. That having been said, however, the manner in which the Applicant was informed of that decision could have been done in a much better way. Considering the fact that the Applicant’s supervisor had only three days earlier, on 9 August 2011, approved his leave, his one-line directive cancelling the Applicant’s leave was not only callous and dismissive but most insensitive. This managerial shortcoming does not, by itself, render the decision prima facie unlawful.Although some harm is caused to the Applicant in...
The Tribunal recalled that the burden of proof lay on the Applicant and there was nothing on record to show that the contested decision was made on the ground of improper motives against the Applicant. On the contrary, it found that OCHA had acted in good faith.
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 UNDT Statute states in no uncertain terms that there is no appeal against such an order. The Tribunal stated that the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (“UNATâ€) had opened the door to an appeal against a Suspension of Action (“SOAâ€) decision by stating that the prohibition to an SOA appeal against a decision was an exception. UNAT meant thereby that it would be left at the discretion of the UNAT whether an appeal...
The Tribunal found: that the Applicant had established a case of prima facie unlawfulness; that the element of urgency was met and the harm suffered to the; Applicant’s reputation and career prospects if the decision was implemented could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages.
Article 2 first confers the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to determine, in any application filed by an individual before it, whether the contested decision is an “administrative decision†and whether it was made in compliance with or contrary to an individual’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. In other words, it is for the Tribunal to determine, inter alia, in any given case, whether a contested decision qualifies as an “administrative decision†or not. As a matter of law and practice, a “friend-of-court†brief is a legal position on the issues for determination before the...
Considering that the Respondent’s allegation that the Applicant’s contract was not renewed for unsatisfactory performance during the period 2009-2010, the Tribunal noted that the rating “Partially meets performance expectations†had been considered by the Rebuttal Panel as unfair and changed to “Fully meets performance expectationsâ€. In the light of this finding the Tribunal took the view that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract on the ground of unsatisfactory performance for the year 20092010 was prima facie unlawful.
Prima facie unlawfulness Having reviewed the Applicant’s performance evaluations, the Tribunal had doubts as to whether the Applicant’s direct supervisors were indeed consulted before the lieutenants finalized and gave to the Applicant the performance evaluation forms on 9 June 2011. Absent an explanation from the Respondent on this particular point, these doubts had a direct impact on the lawfulness of the contested decision. If indeed the Administration did not follow its accepted and reasonable practice, the decision not to extend the Applicant’s appointment due to his poor performance...
