ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

1. The Tribunal noted that, in his reply, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that he had voluntarily decided to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment through 30 June 2025. As an annex to the reply, the Respondent provided a copy of the Applicant¡¯s Personnel Action, indicating that his appointment had been extended to 30 June 2025.

2. The Tribunal thus held that, in light of the above, the Applicant¡¯s request for suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision had become moot. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find it necessary to examine whether...

The Tribunal took note of the Applicant¡¯s preference to have this case adjudicated in New York since he was ¡°partially resident¡± in the United States with his family. However, having reviewed all of the arguments advanced by the parties since the filing of the case with the New York Registry, particularly the official documents provided by Counsel for the Respondent, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate and in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Geneva Registry. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the Applicant would not be prejudiced by the transfer of the case to...

The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as it concerned a recruitment process that was still ongoing and for which there had been no selection decision. The decision not to invite the Applicant for an interview was an intermediate step that was not a final reviewable administrative decision. Consequently, the application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation pertains solely to the decision to withdraw his offer of employment based on a negative reference verification. Accordingly, the only decision that could be subject to a suspension of action order is the withdrawal of the offer. The Applicant¡¯s impending separation from service, however, is a natural consequence of the temporary appointment he voluntarily accepted. It is not part of the contested decision. As a result, the application is not receivable insofar as it seeks to challenge the ¡°implementation of [the Applicant¡¯s] separation from...

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...