2022-Ģ��ƵAT-1219

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal against the Ģ��ƵRWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to Ģ��ƵRWA DT and Ģ��ƵRWA DT had not issued a judgment, Ģ��ƵAT exceptionally allowed and received the Appellant��s appeal. However, on the merits, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to show that Ģ��ƵRWA DT committed legal, factual or other errors. With regard to the Appellant��s argument that he needed to be provided with certain documents and Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s finding that this could not be considered an exceptional circumstance, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant provided no reasons why he did not file an application without those documents, nor was it clear why it would not have been possible for him to do so. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was clear from article 13(3) of the Ģ��ƵRWA DT Rules of Procedure that a staff member must first file an application, and only then can he or she request Ģ��ƵRWA DT to order the production of evidence in possession of the Commissioner-General. On the issue of the Appellant��s complaint that Ģ��ƵRWA DT only translated parts of his motion into English, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT had no obligation to translate the full text or to invite the Appellant to provide an English translation. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not respect the formal requirements for motions when he exceeded the maximum page limit. Ģ��ƵAT held that, having reviewed the motion, Ģ��ƵRWA DT had no reason to assume that the motion could contain exceptional circumstances other than the production of evidence in the possession of the Commissioner-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had not manifestly abused the appeals process. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and the application to award costs.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Appellant contests Ģ��ƵDT Miscellaneous Order No. 001/2021 which denied his motion for an extension of time to file an application against the decision not to reemploy him.

Legal Principle(s)

Only appeals against final judgments are receivable. Interlocutory appeals on matters of evidence, procedure, and trial conduct are not receivable. When deciding on a motion for extension of time to file an application, Ģ��ƵRWA DT is only obliged to consider the arguments presented by the staff member.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

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

Ashraf Zaqqout

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement