2010-Ģ��ƵAT-060

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT, applying Bertucci (2010-Ģ��ƵAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against Ģ��ƵDT��s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within Ģ��ƵDT��s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of Ģ��ƵDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. Ģ��ƵAT further held that the appeal against Ģ��ƵDT��s order for production of the OIOS report was not receivable because it was interrelated with the alleged lack of jurisdiction. As previously held in Tadonki No. 1 (2010-Ģ��ƵAT-005, para. 11), interlocutory appeals on matters of evidence, procedure, and trial conduct are not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the rejection of his request for an administrative review of the outcome of the investigation into his request for protection from alleged retaliation. Ģ��ƵDT found that the decision of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation occurred constituted an administrative decision and that the application was receivable. Ģ��ƵDT also ordered disclosure of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report into a contract the Applicant entered into with a new employer, after notification that his contract with Ģ��ƵMIK would not be renewed due to a reduction in posts.

Legal Principle(s)

An interlocutory appeal is receivable where Ģ��ƵDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. The general rule that only appeals against final judgments are receivable does not apply when Ģ��ƵDT dismisses a case on the grounds that it is not receivable under Article 8 of the Ģ��ƵDT statute, as the case cannot proceed any further and there is a final judgment in effect.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Wasserstorm

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement