�ٱ���Ƶapp

The Secretary-General appealed the UNDT order. UNAT held that, where the implementation of an administrative decision is imminent, through no fault or delay on the part of the staff member, and takes place before the five days provided for under Article 13 of UNDT RoP have elapsed, and where UNDT is not in a position to make a decision under Article 2. 2 of the UNDT Statute, i. e. because it requires further information or time to reflect on the matter, it must have the discretion to grant a suspension of action for these five days. To find otherwise would render Article 2. 2 of the UNDT Statute and Article 13 of UNDT RoP meaningless in cases where the implementation of the contested administrative decision is imminent. UNAT concluded that UNDT did not exceed its jurisdiction in rendering the impugned order and the Secretary-General’s interlocutory appeal was, therefore, not receivable. UNAT held that Article 8. 6 of the UNAT RoP, which provides that “the filing of an appeal shall suspend the execution of the judgment contested”, does not apply to appeals of interlocutory orders rendered by UNDT and that any orders rendered by UNDT require execution even in cases where the order is being appealed. It falls to UNAT to decide whether UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in rendering an interlocutory order and the Administration cannot refrain from executing an order by filing an appeal against it on the basis that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction.