�鶹��ý

Receivability of application for suspension of action pending management evaluation: It results from article 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute that the Tribunal is not in a position to rule on an application for suspension of action, pending management evaluation, on a decision, if copies of the decision in question or the request for management evaluation have not been submitted. Compliance with orders: A party to a proceeding has a duty to comply with an order of the Tribunal and particularly an interlocutory case management order pursuant to Article 19. To persist in disobeying such orders...

The Tribunal found that no interim relief could be ordered either under art. 2.2 or art. 10.2 of its Statute. No management evaluation was ongoing at the time of the application and thus no suspension of action could be ordered under art. 2.2 of the Statute. Further, as no application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute has been filed by the Applicant, no interim relief could be ordered under art. 10.2 of the Statute. The Tribunal noted that, even if the Applicant filed an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Statute in addition to the present application for suspension of...

Application for suspension of action pending management evaluation in disciplinary matters: It is clear from a plain reading of article 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute, article 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure and staff rule 11.2 that the two former provisions apply only where management evaluation is required. In the instant case, the contested decision is a disciplinary measure which can be challenged before the Tribunal without first seeking management evaluation. Thus, the Tribunal cannot rely on these provisions to order the requested suspension of action pending management evaluation...

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.

Renewal: Although staff members do not have an automatic right to renewal, they have a right to a fair consideration for renewal and for a decision based on proper reasons.Renewal, non-renewal, and limitations under art. 10.2 of the Statute: Staff rule 9.6(b) provides that “[s]eparation as a result of … expiration of appointment … shall not be regarded as a termination within the meaning of the Staff Rules”. It is clear that non-renewal decisions are not covered by art. 10.2 of the Statute as they are not a form of termination.Selection of S-1 and S-2 level staff: There appear to be no rules...

Administrative decision: A decision imposing to a staff member an obligation to report to work may not be said to be purely preparatory in nature, as it has effects on his or her terms of appointment. As such, it is a decision open to appeal before the Tribunal. Interim measures: The Tribunal may only grant suspension of action on a decision as an interim measure under articles 10.2 of the Statute and 14 of the Rules of procedure during the proceedings of a case, that is, when there is an application against the same decision pending before it. Management evaluation/receivability of suspension...

The Applicant contended that the transfer decision was unlawful in that it was arbitrary and adopted and implemented in breach of mandatory procedures and that UNCTAD senior management acted in bad faith and with ulterior motives when doing so. The Respondent submitted that the UNCTAD senior management acted within its margin of discretion and on properly reasoned grounds based on the Applicant’s skills and qualifications and the operational needs of UNCTAD both in New York and Geneva. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided to the Applicant for his transfer were not justified by the...

For courts such as the UNDT and UNAT to be effective in the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, it is imperative that their decisions, however unpalatable they appear to a losing party, are obeyed and complied with, pending any judicial avenues for a remedy if the situation so warrants. The Tribunal holds that although the Statute is silent in as far as contempt provisions are concerned, the power to adjudicate on contempt is inherent in the jurisdiction afforded to the Tribunal by the Statute. The function of the Tribunal necessarily requires that its orders would be obeyed and not...

The Tribunal considered that the Applicant as a party cannot file a motion for intervention in her own case, and that her request for intervention by the Tribunal in the rebuttal process is not receivable ratione materiae, thus leaving no legal ground for an interim measure.

The rejection of creating a “separate case” for the Applicant’s motion for interim relief in Case No. UNDT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.