2021-Ģ��ƵAT-1078

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, Ģ��ƵAT actually rejected the Secretary-General��s appeal on the basis that it was moot. Ģ��ƵAT noted that Ģ��ƵDT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

One day after the deadline to file an application, a former staff member filed a motion with Ģ��ƵDT seeking an extension of time, citing COVID-19 disruptions as his reason for his failure to submit a timely application. By Order No. 103 (NBI/2020), Ģ��ƵDT granted the extension so the staff member can file an application challenging his dismissal for misconduct. The Secretary-General appealed the interlocutory order arguing that Ģ��ƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction by granting the motion, even though it was filed after the application deadline.

Legal Principle(s)

In the event a case has been disposed by the Ģ��ƵDT as a result of the failure of a staff member to file an application, after being granted an extension of time to do so, an appeal by the Secretary-General against the related interlocutory order granting such extension will be found moot and not receivable. Also, an appeal against an interlocutory order is receivable only in limited instances when it is clear and manifest that the Ģ��ƵDT has exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

Outcome Extra Text

Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General��s appeal as moot.

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

Abdalla Mohammed Abdalla

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement