Article 10.2

The Applicant's motion for interim measure is made in the context of a series of applications arising from decisions taken because of allegations of misconduct against the Applicant, which involved sexual harassment and sexual abuse. Such misconduct is recognized in the regulatory framework as of such gravity that it provides an exceptional basis for placing a staff member on ALWOP pending the conclusion of the investigation. The Applicant contends that, based on new information available, there is no longer any basis for a finding that there is a preponderance of evidence that he engaged in...

The Tribunal recalls that in his pending application, the Applicant contests the 1 December 2023 decision to place him on ALWOP. The Tribunal assessed the lawfulness of this decision in its consideration of the Applicant’s 24 January 2024 application for suspension of action. The Tribunal found that the contested decision was not prima facie unlawful. The Applicant argues that the decision-maker failed to consider all the evidence before him when deciding to extend his placement on ALWOP. This, however, could be relevant, at best, in an examination of the 20 August 2024 decision extending the...

The UNAT held that the motion was not receivable because the impugned Order was not appealable and the UNDT had acted within its competence and jurisdiction in finding that the non-renewal decision had been prima facie lawful. The UNAT found that the staff member’s request for reinstatement to his previous position could be considered as “temporary relief to prevent irreparable harm” but it was instead an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the suspension of action which was not permitted. The UNAT also noted that granting the staff member’s request would not maintain consistency with the...

The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-UNAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

The applicable rule stipulates that an application for interim measures during the proceedings must not concern appointment, promotion or termination. As this was clearly a case where the motion for interim measures concerned appointment, the temporary relief set out in art.14 was unavailable to the Applicant.

Accordingly, the motion for interim measures during the proceedings was rejected.

In any case, the Tribunal noted that the contested decision had already been implemented as the Applicant had been separated from UNHCR.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant requested the interim measure of “[s]uspension of [a]ction of the proposed separation of the Applicant” under art. 14 of the Rules of Procedure. The applicable rule stipulates that an application for interim measures during the proceedings must not concern appointment, promotion or termination. As this was clearly a case where the application concerned termination, the temporary relief set out in art.14 was unavailable to the Applicant.

In any event, the Tribunal noted that the contested decision had already been implemented and that the Applicant had...

The UNAT held that the UNDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The UNAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard. The UNAT observed that he had received “partially meets performance expectations” for two performance cycles, and “does not meet expectations” for the most recent performance cycle. He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeals against UNDT decisions ordering the suspension of the contested decisions beyond the deadline for management evaluation. UNAT clarified that, generally, only appeals against final judgments would be receivable, because otherwise, cases would seldom proceed if either party was dissatisfied with a procedural ruling. Article 2.2 of the UNDT Statute authorizes UNDT to order suspension of a contested decision only “during the pendency of the management evaluation”. UNAT found that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering suspension of the contested...

UNAT considered appeals by the Secretary-General of Order Nos. 30 (NBI/2011) and 33 (NBI/2011). Order No. 30 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension of action until 13 May 2011, beyond the date on which the management evaluation was completed. UNAT held that UNDT should have granted a suspension until 13 May 2011 or until the completion of management evaluation if the latter was earlier. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. Order No. 33 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension until the final determination of the case, and therefore beyond the completion of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that appeals against decisions taken during proceedings are receivable only in exceptional circumstances where UNDT has manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction. UNAT held that even though UNDT may have committed a procedural error, it had not exceeded its jurisdiction. UNAT dismissed the appeal.