2014-Ģ��ƵAT-476

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal limited to the Appellant��s claim that Ģ��ƵDT erred in awarding costs against him. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the jurisdiction of a tribunal to award costs is narrowly restricted to instances where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings. Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT gave no reasons for its determination that the Appellant had manifestly abused the proceedings, cited no evidence establishing that his application was frivolous or vexatious, or that he had deliberately delayed the proceedings, or had disobeyed an order of Ģ��ƵDT or had, in any other way, abused Ģ��ƵDT��s proceedings. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had no grounds for its finding that the Appellant��s application was an abuse of process and, therefore, erred in ordering the costs against him. Ģ��ƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT��s order for costs.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant challenged the administrative decision to demote him from one level (G-7 to G-6). Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application, finding that the facts, on which the disciplinary sanction was based, were established and undisputed. Ģ��ƵDT held that the facts amounted to misconduct and that the sanction was not disproportionate to the offence. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant��s application constituted an abuse of process and awarded costs against him.

Legal Principle(s)

The jurisdiction of a tribunal to award costs is narrowly restricted by statute to cases in which it determines that a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it. It is incumbent on a tribunal awarding costs to state the reasons on which its award of costs is based.

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 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

Machanguana

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement