É«¿âTV

As indicated by the Respondent in his reply, the selected candidate signed the letter of appointment and assumed her functions on 19 June 2024. She further completed the onboarding formalities on 24 June 2024. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that it can no longer entertain the instant application, which was filed on 28 June 2024, thus after the contested decision has been implemented. Granting an injunction would require reversing the onboarding of the selected candidate, which it clearly cannot do.

An application for suspension of action can only be entertained under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal when the challenged contested decision is the subject of an ongoing management evaluation (see Onana 2010-UNAT-008, para. 19; Igbinedion 2011-UNAT-159, para. 20). In the present case, the Applicant’s management evaluation request was no longer pending. The evidence showed that the Deputy High Commissioner completed the management evaluation on 27 June 2024, and that the Applicant received the outcome of his management evaluation request the same day. Consequently, as the management...

Since the management evaluation in this case has been completed, one of the cumulative and mandatory conditions specified in art. 2.2 of the Tribunal’s Statute is not fulfilled. The Tribunal will therefore not examine if the remaining statutory requirements have been met, as the matter now lies moot.

Pursuant to Article 2.2 of the 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. These requirements are cumulative, meaning all three must be satisfied for a suspension of action to be granted. In this case, the record indicated that the Applicant’s temporary contract had been extended until 11 March 2024...

The Applicant’s request for management evaluation pertains solely to the decision to withdraw his offer of employment based on a negative reference verification. Accordingly, the only decision that could be subject to a suspension of action order is the withdrawal of the offer. The Applicant’s impending separation from service, however, is a natural consequence of the temporary appointment he voluntarily accepted. It is not part of the contested decision. As a result, the application is not receivable insofar as it seeks to challenge the “implementation of [the Applicant’s] separation from...

In this case, the Management Advice and Evaluation Section had already issued a response to the Applicant’s 22 December 2023 request for management evaluation. There was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. In view of the foregoing, the application for suspension of action pending management evaluation was dismissed as not receivable.

In this case, the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that the Applicant’s request for a management evaluation was time-barred and was therefore not receivable. As there was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. Additionally, pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal shall not suspend or waive the deadlines for management evaluation.

1. The Tribunal noted that in sec. VI of his application form, the Applicant declared that he did not request management evaluation. Indeed, he did not file a copy of his management evaluation request with his application. The record showed that the Applicant was yet to request management evaluation of the decision he sought to have suspended. 2. The Tribunal recalled that applications filed pursuant to arts. 2.2 of the UNDT Statute and 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure must be predicated on a pending management evaluation. Consequently, since the Applicant had not requested...

The Applicant argued that the contested decision was prima facie unlawful on two grounds: The justification for abolishing her post was false and misleading. UNAMA had created a legal expectation of contract renewal. Regarding the first claim, the Tribunal held that a staff member’s disagreement with the rationale behind post abolition does not render the decision unlawful. Additionally, while UNAMA officials could have been more transparent when the Applicant sought clarification, their lack of candor—though unfortunate—did not amount to unlawfulness in the decision not to renew her...

1. The Tribunal noted that, in his reply, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that he had voluntarily decided to extend the Applicant’s appointment through 30 June 2025. As an annex to the reply, the Respondent provided a copy of the Applicant’s Personnel Action, indicating that his appointment had been extended to 30 June 2025.

2. The Tribunal thus held that, in light of the above, the Applicant’s request for suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision had become moot. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find it necessary to examine whether...