2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-410

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established 罌厭弝ⅰAT jurisprudence. However, 罌厭弝ⅰAT also held that parties before 罌厭弝ⅰDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by 罌厭弝ⅰDT remained legally valid until such time as 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated it. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Secretary-General＊s refusal to comply with 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s order was vexatious. 罌厭弝ⅰAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. 罌厭弝ⅰAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT referrals for possible action to enforce accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to extend his appointment. 罌厭弝ⅰDT issued Order No. 30, granting his request for suspension of action of the contested decision pending management evaluation. 罌厭弝ⅰDT issued Order No. 33, granting suspension of action until the case was reviewed on the merits. In Order No. 110, 罌厭弝ⅰDT reiterated the suspension of the non-extension decision pending the determination of the merits. 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated Orders No. 30 and No. 33. In respect of Order No. 30, 罌厭弝ⅰAT concluded that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law, as it had extended the suspension of action beyond the date of completion of management evaluation. Regarding Order No. 33, 罌厭弝ⅰAT concluded that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had exceeded its jurisdiction by extending the suspension of action until the final determination of the case on its merits, in contravention of Article 10. 2 of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute, which excludes such a possibility in cases of appointment, promotion or termination. 罌厭弝ⅰ-Habitat did not extend the staff member＊s appointment, in contravention of that order, and in judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2013/024, 罌厭弝ⅰDT held that there was an obligation to execute 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 33, which had not been met. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found, inter alia, that three 罌厭弝ⅰ-Habitat officials and OLA were in contempt of its authority and made referrals for accountability.

Legal Principle(s)

The absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. 罌厭弝ⅰAT sets precedents, to be followed in like cases by the Dispute Tribunal (principle of stare decisis). An interlocutory order by 罌厭弝ⅰDT remains legally valid until such time as it has been vacated by 罌厭弝ⅰAT. Parties before 罌厭弝ⅰDT must obey its binding decisions.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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

Igbinedion

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement