2019-Ģ��ƵAT-975

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that Ģ��ƵDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Ģ��ƵDT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal��s processes and within the Ģ��ƵDT��s jurisdiction. Ģ��ƵAT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT also noted that it does not have the authority to order the Ģ��ƵAT to reassign or reinstate judges. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed both Ģ��ƵDT Orders.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant submitted three applications to Ģ��ƵDT. One was adjudicated by Judge Downing. Prior to judgment being issued on the second and third applications, they were assigned to a new judge (Judge Bravo). Judge Bravo issued case management or interlocutory order (Order No. 54 (GVA/2019)) and Order No. 55 (GBA/2019). In the Orders, Judge Bravo notified the parties of the reassignment and proposed a course of action, allowing the parties to raise any objections. The Applicant objected and appealed the Orders to Ģ��ƵAT on the basis that the removal of a sitting judge exceeded Ģ��ƵDT��s jurisdiction and was a reviewable and correctable error.

Legal Principle(s)

The Appellant has the onus of proving that Ģ��ƵDT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Decisions of Ģ��ƵDT on the assignment or reassignment of cases to a judge are a matter of case management and as such, within the jurisdiction of Ģ��ƵDT. In the statutory interpretation of a legislative provision such as a GA resolution, the words of a legislative provision are to be read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme and object of the legislation, and the intention of the legislature.

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

Reilly

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry