Ãå±±½ûµØ

Receivability of the decision not to renew the appointment: In this case, the triggering point should have been the moment when the staff member was made aware by the Administration that there was no reasonable chance or possibility of renewal. Thus, it is the date when the applicant was notified of the termination of her contract; therefore, the application is receivable. Articles 13 and 14 of the Rules of Procedure: Since there is an ongoing management evaluation of the decision not to renew the applicant’s appointment, the applicable interim measure to be ordered would be that under article 13 of the Rules of Procedure. To grant the order for a suspension of action, the Tribunal must be satisfied that all three conditions specified in article 2.2 of its Statute and article 13 of its Rules of Procedure are cumulatively met. Urgency: The applicant has provided sufficient and reasonable explanations for the delay in contesting the decision; therefore, the urgency requirement is satisfied. Prima facie unlawfulness: In order to show that the contested decision appears prima facie to be unlawful, it is not necessary to demonstrate that it was motivated solely by improper motives. As long as the applicant can demonstrate that the decision was influenced by improper considerations and was contrary to the Administration’s obligations to ensure that its decisions are proper and made in good faith, the test for prima facie unlawfulness will be satisfied. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is an arguable case that the decision was unlawful. Irreparable damage: In each case, the Tribunal has to look at the particular factual circumstances. There are many instances when the Tribunal will be able to fully compensate for any harm to professional reputation and career prospects should the applicant pursue a substantive appeal. The applicant has failed to show that the decision would cause irreparable damage if implemented. Outcome: The application is dismissed.