Ãå±±½ûµØ

The decision to terminate the Applicant’s contract was taken at the Mission level, without the delegated authority required by ST/AI/234 and was therefore unlawful. The post facto approval of the decision by the ASG/OHRM does not cure the unlawfulness.The Secretary-General’s action of entering into a contract of employment with the Applicant for the reason only of securing termination indemnities for the Applicant does not appear to be supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rules or any known principles of an employment contract.The termination of the Applicant’s appointment as a result of the liquidation of UNMIS does not call into question his integrity, affect his reputation or affect his career prospects with future employers. Any damage that might ultimately be suffered by the Applicant as a result of the Tribunal’s findings in relation to the lawfulness of the impugned decision can be remedied through an award of damages.A suspension of action application requires the cumulative presence of prima facie unlawfulness, urgency and irreparable harm in order to be successful. The absence of one of these conditions, while not allowing the grant of this Application, does not extinguish an applicant’s cause of action where an unlawful decision has been taken to his or her detriment. It is the finding of this Tribunal that the subject matter of this suit cannot properly be addressed and determined in a suspension of action application. The Application for suspension of action is hereby refused for not having satisfied the three conditions required under the Statute and Article 13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for its grant. The Tribunal hereby transfers the instant Application to the general cause list to be heard on the merits.