�山����

Two types of interim measures - with different functions, preconditions, restrictions and scope - have to be clearly distinguished. Art. 13 RoP has to be applied exclusively during the pendency of the management evaluation, whereas art. 14 RoP is appropriate only during judicial review in terms of art. 2 and 8 Statute; in short: it is either 13 or 14 – never both. Orders based on art. 13 RoP become ineffective with the end of management evaluation. The present application had to be considered under art. 13 RoP since the contested decision of 12 October 2009 was released under new conditions...

The application was not receivable under article 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure because at the time the application was filed, there was no management evaluation pending. It was only on 21 October 2009 that the Tribunal received a copy of the request for management evaluation of the decision of 5 October 2009. The application was not receivable under article 14 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure because the administrative decision dated 5 October 2009 to fill the post related to an appointment and could not be the subject of interim relief in view of the exception contained in article 14...

The Secretary-General’s decision to allow the applicants to resubmit their cases to the CAC within 90 days was reasonable and fair. The CAC is the legitimate and appropriate body to hear the applicants’ request for a review of a reclassification decision. In view of the JAB’s report, the lack of information provided during the period in question and the respondent’s silence in explaining the delays in the period from 2000-04, the Tribunal finds that compensation for the excessive delay in responding to the original request for reclassification is warranted, as is compensation for the breach of...

In the present judgment, UNDT found that, in light of the circumstances of this case, the three months’ net base salary paid to the Applicant for the lack of due process on the recommendation of the JAB report was insufficient. UNDT found the procedural unfairness to be so grave that it warranted additional compensation in the amount of USD15,000 for the breach of the Applicant’s procedural rights. With respect to compensation for actual economic loss, UNDT held that the Respondent shall compensate the Applicant for the actual economic loss incurred by her and that the actual economic loss...

ST/AI/292, dated 15 July 1982, provides measures in relation to the filing of adverse materials in personnel records, which measures were supposed to be interim in nature. In the context of the current framework of norms, ST/AI/292 alone does not provide adequate “rebuttal” procedures for short-term staff. The creation of two classes of short-term staff which potentially occurs via ST/AI/2002/3, based on management discretion is not fair; where the provisions of ST/AI/2002/3 are applied to some short-term staff and not others, this violates the doctrine of equal treatment in like circumstances...

The Tribunal found that the application was receivable. The contested decision had not yet been implemented, as the head of the department had simply communicated by phone his selection to the successful candidate and the latter had merely sent an email expressing his “great interest” in the job. The Tribunal found that this did not amount to an official offer by the Administration followed by an unconditional acceptance by the candidate. The Tribunal considered that the impending appointment of the successful candidate conferred urgency to the matter; that the contested decision, if...

Having considered that the application on the merits is irreceivable because the relevant response period for the management evaluation has not expired, the Tribunal rejects the application for suspension of action insofar as it is submitted pursuant to article 14 of the Rules of Procedure. It however considers that the contested decision appears prima facie unlawful, that its implementation would cause irreparable damage and that the case is of particular urgency, and it consequently orders that the contested decision be suspended during the pendency of the management evaluation, pursuant to...

Whether the decision being contested is the one taken by OHRM to separate the Applicant from service, or the earlier decision taken by UNSPC, or the pending decision of the ABCC, there is currently no case that is pending management evaluation. There is also no substantive application before the Tribunal in relation to which this request for interim relief could be considered. In any event, art. 10.2 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute provides that a suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision may not be granted in cases of termination, which includes separation...

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...