Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
The Secretary-General filed appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT determined that, generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that an interlocutory appeal is receivable exceptionally in cases where Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that it would not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT in the management of cases. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that one of the goals of the new system of administration of justice is rendering timely judgments; cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT could seldom proceed if either party were able to appeal interlocutory decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that in this case, it saw no reason to depart from the general rule that only appeals against final judgments are receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeals as not receivable.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The staff member contested his non-selection for the post of ASG/DESA. Before and during the hearing of the case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT issued a series of Orders (i. e. Order Nos. 40, 42, 43, 44 and 46 (NY/2010)).
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT generally has no jurisdiction to receive interlocutory appeals (i. e. appeals against rulings made during the course of trial before a final judgment is rendered). Interlocutory appeals are only receivable where Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.