2018-Ģ��ƵAT-816

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. Ģ��ƵAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the Ģ��ƵDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of Ģ��ƵDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application for suspension of action of the decision to separate him from service due to abandonment of post. Ģ��ƵDT issued an Order finding that the decision to separate the Applicant from service was lawful and dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵAT may receive additional evidence in exceptional circumstances if it is in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. A decision of the Ģ��ƵDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. There is one exception to this rule: An appeal against interlocutory decisions can be receivable in cases where Ģ��ƵDT clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction.

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

Harris

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement