2015-Ģ��ƵAT-560

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General��s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler��s contention that Ģ��ƵAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no merit to this contention and that the Orders came within the Ģ��ƵDT��s competence to issue appropriate case management orders. Ģ��ƵAT held that since Ģ��ƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing Order No. 116, the appeal was not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT held that: the manner in which the parties should conduct themselves during the proceedings is a routine topic for a case management order; Ģ��ƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing Order no. 126; and the appeal of that Order was not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT held that the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT Order: Mr Staedler brought proceedings contesting the decision of the Office of Staff Legal Assistance to decline to represent him in a case. In the course of those proceedings, in Order No. 116 (GVA/2014) Ģ��ƵDT granted the Secretary-General��s motion to participate in the proceedings and to accept his reply as part of the Ģ��ƵDT record. In Order No. 126 (GVA/2014), Ģ��ƵDT denied Mr Staedler��s motions for reconsideration and for permission to respond to the Respondent��s reply and admonished Mr Staedler to refrain from making any comments about Counsel for the Respondent in his submissions.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵAT may receive interlocutory appeals arising from preliminary proceedings in exceptional cases where Ģ��ƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.

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 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

Staedtler

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement