2012-Ģ��ƵAT-230

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against Ģ��ƵDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute had been met. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ģ��ƵAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the oral hearing was to be held. Ģ��ƵAT held that this ruling was outside Ģ��ƵDT��s jurisdictional power and consequently held that Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its competence. Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal against Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) was receivable and well-founded. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal and rescinded Order No. 081 to the extent that it granted the suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision beyond 5 July 2011, rendering moot Mr Nwuke��s appeals from Order No. 101 and judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2012/002.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Nwuke contested the decision to appoint another individual as Director of the Regional Integration, Infrastructure and Trade Division (RIITD). In Order No. 081, Ģ��ƵDT ordered the suspension until 17 August 2011 until when the oral hearing of the case was due to be held. In Order No. 101, Ģ��ƵDT dismissed Mr Nwuke��s application for suspension of action, as Ģ��ƵDT did not find that the contested decision was unlawful. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2012/002, Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application for suspension of action on the basis that it could not conclude that the appointment exercise was unlawful.

Legal Principle(s)

Generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. Appeals against interlocutory decisions, however, they may be named by Ģ��ƵDT, will not be receivable save in exceptional cases where Ģ��ƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Where the implementation of an administrative decision is imminent, through no fault or delay on the part of the staff member, and takes place before the five days provided for under Article 13 of the Ģ��ƵDT RoP have elapsed, and where Ģ��ƵDT is not in a position to make a decision under Article 2(2) of the Ģ��ƵDT statute, i. e. because it requires further information or time to reflect on the matter, it must have the discretion to grant a suspension for action for these five days.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; 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

Nwuke

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry