021 (NY/2024)

021 (NY/2024), Hannina

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal considered that the Applicant did not establish the required irreparable damage. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not submit that she faced loss of employment or income, but rather that her placement on ALWP was “detrimental and harmful to her professional work and reputation”. Second, by arguing that “she [would] have to painstakingly re-establish her credibility and authority” and “rehabilitate” her professional image, she was, in fact, arguing that these aspects can be repaired. Third, the Applicant did not provide any supporting documentation, such as a medical report or the assessment of a medical expert, to substantiate her claims regarding the “physiological and mental impact” of the contested decision on her health. Under the particular circumstances of this case, however, any damage cannot be considered “irreparable”.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application for suspension of action contesting the Administration’s decision to extend the duration of her placement on administrative leave with pay (“ALWP”).

Legal Principle(s)

For an application for suspension of action to be successful, there must be at least an averment of irreparable harm to the Applicant.

The Applicant has not shown that the implementation of the contested decision would cause her any harm that could not be compensated by an appropriate award of damages in the event the Applicant decides to file an application on the merits under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute (Evangelista UNDT/2011/212).

Outcome
Suspension of action denied
Outcome Extra Text

As the Applicant did not satisfy the requirement of proving that she would suffer irreparable damage if the contested decision were implemented, the application failed and there was no need to examine the conditions of prima facie unlawfulness and particular urgency.

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Individual Party
Hannina
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Order
Duty Judge
Language of Order
Issuance Type
Categories/Subcategories