2021-UNAT-1145, Jacques Armand
UNAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained UNDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the UNDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.
A staff member filed an application with the UNDT for suspension of action pending management evaluation. The Administration had decided that it would deduct the monthly sum of $5,032 from the staff member’s salary, pursuant to a final judgment from a Florida Court directing the latter to pay the above sum in child support. The UNDT issued an order denying his request, finding the impugned administrative decision lawful. The tribunal held the request did not meet the requirements of Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute, which includes that the contested administrative decision is prima facie unlawful, that the matter appears to be of particular urgency and that the implementation of the decision would appear to cause irreparable damage. UNDT explained the Florida Court order was authentic and final in terms, and therefore the impugned decision had a legal basis, which means it can’t be considered prima facie unlawful.
An application for suspension of action must show that the contested administrative decision is prima facie unlawful, that the matter appears to be of particular urgency and that the implementation of the decision would cause irreparable harm. If the legal basis for an administrative decision emanates from a final judgment of a national court directing a staff member to pay child support, such administrative decision cannot be said to be prima facie unlawful. An appeal against an interlocutory order or an application for suspension of action is not receivable unless the Appellant shows that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction.
Appeal is dismissed, and UNDT Order is upheld.