591 (2025), Jonathan Hall; Khalilah Hackman; Giovanni Ardito
UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT noted with concern that the JAB had been dismantled temporarily without prior warning given to ISA staff members and with no reasons provided by the Administration; it was also alarming that the Administration had dismantled the JAB with no successor in place, denying the staff members access to justice in the interim. The UNAT found that there were no judgments or decisions from the JAB against which the UNAT could evaluate the requested relief. The UNAT held that the motions had become moot as the JAB had since been reconstituted and a panel to consider the requests for suspension of action filed by the staff members had been appointed. The UNAT denied the motions for interim measures.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) decided to “withdraw” the staff members’ Letters of Appointment. The staff members filed motions for interim measures challenging the failure by the ISA Joint Appeals Board (JAB) to dispose of their requests for suspension of action concerning the “withdrawal” of their respective signed Letters of Appointment. The staff members alleged that they had no choice but to come to the UNAT for relief because ISA had dismantled the JAB.
Legal Principle(s)
The Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction and competence to determine whether the decision of the neutral first instance body, the JAB, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence; failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it; erred on a question of law; committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case; or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It is well-established in the Appeals Tribunal’s jurisprudence that in order to grant interim relief, the Tribunal must be satisfied that (1) there is a real likelihood of irreparable harm which can be prevented if temporary relief is granted, and (2) the temporary relief granted would be consistent with the judgment of the Dispute Tribunal.