2014-罌厭弝ⅰAT-461

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

The Secretary-General appealed 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s decision to admit to judicial review Ms Al-Badri's challenge against the decision to abolish her post in Amman and to create a new post at the same level in Baghdad. 罌厭弝ⅰAT only considered the receivability of this appeal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that alleged excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of 罌厭弝ⅰDT, so as to admit an appeal of an interlocutory order or judgment, must be clear or manifest. 罌厭弝ⅰAT recalled its jurisprudence that the general principle underlying the right of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute is that only final judgments of 罌厭弝ⅰDT are appealable and that only when it is clear that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT has exceeded its jurisdiction will a preliminary matter be receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the alleged lack of jurisdiction or competence on the part of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT, given the particular circumstances of the case, was not clearly established. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Secretary-General＊s specific argument should be considered once a final judgment had been rendered if the Secretary-General chose to appeal further. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal on the basis that it was not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ms Al-Badri contested the sudden verbal decision to relocate her post from Amman to Baghdad without any notice, the subsequent abolition of her post in Amman, and the rejection of her request to postpone her entry on duty (EOD) date for a post in Baghdad to the end of March 2011. 罌厭弝ⅰDT found that 罌厭弝ⅰDP was estopped from asserting that Ms Al-Badri＊s challenge of the decision to abolish her post in Amman and to create a new post in Baghdad was time-barred. 罌厭弝ⅰDT also found that Ms Al-Badri＊s claim against 罌厭弝ⅰDP for refusing to postpone her EOD in Baghdad to the end of March 2011 was not receivable, as she did not raise the issue in her March 2011 request for management evaluation, nor did she make any submissions in this regard in her filing with 罌厭弝ⅰDT dated June 2013.

Legal Principle(s)

The general principle underlying the right of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute is that only final judgments of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT are appealable. Only when it is clear that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT has exceeded its jurisdiction will a preliminary matter be receivable. Alleged excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT, so as to admit an appeal of an interlocutory order or judgment must be clear or manifest.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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

Al-Badri

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement