Interlocutory appeal | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2012-罌厭弝ⅰAT-243, Hersh

29 Jun 2012

罌厭弝ⅰAT granted the Secretary-General＊s appeal on the basis that 罌厭弝ⅰDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdictional powers by converting an application for suspension of action into an application on merits and inviting the parties to make submissions on the merits. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT took an ultra petita decision by ordering measures for which no claim had been made.

2012-罌厭弝ⅰAT-255, Igunda

1 Nov 2012

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal against 罌厭弝ⅰDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to 罌厭弝ⅰDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT...

2012-罌厭弝ⅰAT-230, Nwuke

29 Jun 2012

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute had been met. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

2012-罌厭弝ⅰAT-223, Rawat

29 Jun 2012

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that 罌厭弝ⅰAT consider the appeal receivable and find that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat＊s appointment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, 罌厭弝ⅰDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. 罌厭弝ⅰAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. 罌厭弝ⅰAT rescinded...

2012-罌厭弝ⅰAT-214, Fradin De Bellabre

16 Mar 2012

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the contentions against judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2009/004 were not receivable since only appeals against judgments on merits are receivable. Regarding the contentions against judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2011/080, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no need to produce further documents. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had correctly applied Article 10. 5 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute in ordering compensation in lieu and that the Appellant had no right to request 罌厭弝ⅰAT to order his reinstatement. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that the non-renewal was based on a tainted performance evaluation and that 罌厭弝ⅰDT, therefore, ordered the rescission of the...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-390, Wesslund

17 Oct 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered a writ of mandamus from Ms Wesslund, who requested that 罌厭弝ⅰAT order 罌厭弝ⅰDT to accept her applications. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that because it did not have inherent or original jurisdiction outside its capacity as an appellate body, it considered the motion for writ of mandamus to be an appeal against 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 100 (NY/2013). 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeal was received beyond the deadline for appeal. Noting that Ms Wesslund did not apply to 罌厭弝ⅰAT for an extension or waive of the applicable time limits, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeal of the Order was not receivable ratione temporis. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-324, El-Komy

31 Jul 2014

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must, therefore, be narrowly interpreted; 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the exception applied only to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending management evaluation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that no jurisdictional decision, which, as in matter before it, ordered the suspension of a contested administrative decision for a period beyond the date on which the management evaluation was...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-327, Tiwathia

28 Jun 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that appeals from 罌厭弝ⅰDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if 罌厭弝ⅰDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, although the Appellant＊s claims addressed the merits of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeal was not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰDT dismissed the appeal.

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-314, Mpacko

28 Mar 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Ms Mpacko＊s claims addressed the merits of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT decision and did not amount to claims that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko＊s application for suspension of action. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-423, Bastet

2 Apr 2014

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant＊s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of 罌厭弝ⅰDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of 罌厭弝ⅰDT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant...