2011-Ģ��ƵAT-121

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. Ģ��ƵAT stated the principle that Ģ��ƵDT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes Ģ��ƵDT��s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request Ģ��ƵDT to verify the confidentiality of the document in question. Before such verification is completed, the said document may not be transmitted to the other party. If Ģ��ƵDT considers the confidentiality of the document justified, it must remove the document, or part of it, from the case file. Ģ��ƵDT may not subsequently use such a document against a party unless the said party has had an opportunity to examine it. However, Ģ��ƵDT may not exclude a party from its proceedings if that party refuses to execute Ģ��ƵDT��s order to produce a document because to do so would run afoul of the principle of respect for the right to a defence and the right to an effective remedy set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When a party refuses to execute Ģ��ƵDT��s order to produce a document, Ģ��ƵDT is entitled to draw appropriate conclusions from the refusal in its final judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The staff member contested his non-selection for the post of ASG/DESA. Ģ��ƵDT ruled in his favour. Ģ��ƵDT sanctioned the Administration��s refusal to produce the documents relating to the appointment process by excluding its counsel from participating in the proceedings and rendered a default judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT has discretionary authority in conducting the proceedings and ordering the production of evidence in the interest of justice. This power is conferred to Ģ��ƵDT so that there may be fair and expeditious disposal of the case. Ģ��ƵDT is entitled to order the production of any document relevant to that end and may draw inferences from a party��s refusal to disclose documents.

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

Bertucci

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry