2011-Ģ��ƵAT-113

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because Ģ��ƵDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to Ģ��ƵDT for a de novo review.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant submitted an application involving a general claim of discrimination and harassment, which allegedly led to her non-promotion and the non-attribution of credits in a publication. Ģ��ƵDT focused only on the decision of non-attribution and left the issues of non-promotion and harassment/discrimination to be separately reviewed, as the Applicant had only recently expanded the evidence that she wished to adduce on those two issues and the case would not be ready for adjudication before the end of the Judge��s tenure. On the issue of non-attribution, Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

A trial judge is not allowed to divorce parts of a case that are ready to be decided from the other parts of the case that should go on trial if the division would violate due process of law. Ģ��ƵAT has grounds to find an appeal receivable where Ģ��ƵDT has committed an error of procedure so as to affect the decision of the case.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Kamanou

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement