2012-罌厭弝ⅰAT-268

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General＊s appeal, 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative decision and, if denied, appeal to the former Joint Appeals Board (JAB), and thereafter to the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the staff had failed to request the review in a timely manner and that, therefore, 罌厭弝ⅰDT had no jurisdiction, and the application was not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not have the competence to waive time limits and that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had, therefore, erred. Regarding the staff member＊s appeal, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that neither 罌厭弝ⅰAT nor 罌厭弝ⅰDT had the power to review decisions of the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal and that the appeal on this ground had to fail. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed Mr Bangoura＊s appeal, upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions to suspend him on full pay pending expiry of his contract and not to renew his contract, seeking compensation for the defamation in the form of remarks made in a press briefing. The former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal rendered a judgment ordering the Administration to compensate the Applicant for the injuries suffered and found that the Organisation＊s decision not to continue the Applicant＊s employment was tainted by abuse of power on the part of the Administration. The Applicant, unsatisfied with the outcome of his case, raised the matter with the Administration between April 2002 and October 2008 and eventually filed an application with 罌厭弝ⅰDT. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found that the issues raised by the Applicant before 罌厭弝ⅰDT stemmed from the same course of action and were thus res judicata and, therefore, closed. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found that the judgment of the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal had not been fully implemented. Regarding the receivability ratione materiae, 罌厭弝ⅰDT concluded the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal and 罌厭弝ⅰDT had the same power to order the execution of their own judgments. Regarding the receivability ratione temporis, 罌厭弝ⅰDT found that notwithstanding the long time that had passed since the judgment, the Applicant could not be left without remedy since he in fact had repeatedly raised the matter with the Administration. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found that its Rules of Procedure provided a sufficient legal basis for 罌厭弝ⅰDT to order the execution of a judgment rendered by the former Administrative Tribunal. 罌厭弝ⅰDT also awarded compensation in the amount of USD 10,000 on the ground that the Administration＊s failure to fully execute the judgment of the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal had deprived the Applicant of complete redress for the wrong done to him over a period of nearly ten years.

Legal Principle(s)

罌厭弝ⅰDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant＊s receipt of the contested administrative decision. Neither 罌厭弝ⅰDT nor 罌厭弝ⅰAT have the power to review decisions of the former Administrative Tribunal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability; 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

Bangoura

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry