Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisprudence. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that parties before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT remained legally valid until such time as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to comply with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order was vexatious. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while only final judgments of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeding its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not ¡°clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction¡± when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of ¡°appointment, promotion, or termination¡± excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT clarified, did not mean that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

On the request for the oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT actually rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that it was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.