2012-罌厭弝ⅰAT-256

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered the three appeals by the Secretary-General against the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Orders. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond management evaluation and Order No. 136 confirmed Order No. 129 even though management evaluation had been finalized. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT thereby violated Article 2. 2 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 13 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT RoP, which provide for suspension of the implementation of a contested decision only during the pendency of the management evaluation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Order No. 142 decided a suspension in a matter of appointment during 罌厭弝ⅰDT proceedings and thereby violated Article 10. 2 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute, which prohibits the suspension of the implementation of an administrative decision in cases of appointment, promotion, or termination. 罌厭弝ⅰAT upheld the Secretary-General＊s appeals and vacated 罌厭弝ⅰDT Orders.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Benchebbak requested management evaluation of the decision not be extend his appointment and later requested 罌厭弝ⅰDT to suspend the implementation of the contested decision, pending management evaluation. 罌厭弝ⅰDT issued Order No. 129 ordering the suspension of the contested decision until 10 November 2011, to allow the filing of the Respondent＊s comments, the hearing and the determination of this matter. The Secretary-General requested that the Order be discharged. Later Mr Benchebbak filed an application on the merits as well as a request for interim relief. 罌厭弝ⅰDT issued Order No. 136 rejecting the Secretary-General＊s request to have Order No. 129 discharged. 罌厭弝ⅰDT issued Order No. 142 by which it disposed of Mr Benchebbak＊s application for suspension of action under Article 14 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT RoP. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found the application receivable as the contested decision amounted to a non-renewal rather than a termination. 罌厭弝ⅰDT accordingly found that the prohibition of the suspension of decisions on appointment, promotion, and termination provided for in Article 10. 2 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 14 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT RoP did not apply. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found that the criteria for suspending the contested decision were met and consequently ordered the continued suspension of the contested decision, pending the determination of the case on the merits.

Legal Principle(s)

In cases where 罌厭弝ⅰDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction, 罌厭弝ⅰAT will exceptionally receive the appeal, e.g.: (1) where 罌厭弝ⅰDT has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2.2 of 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 13 of 罌厭弝ⅰDT Rules of Procedure by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) where 罌厭弝ⅰDT has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10.2 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 14 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Rules of Procedure by ordering during the proceedings suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment, promotion or termination.

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 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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

Benchebbak

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry