2022-Ģ��ƵAT-1307

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the Ģ��ƵDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases. The Ģ��ƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier Ģ��ƵAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal. The Ģ��ƵAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same unmeritorious points. The Ģ��ƵAT also rejected Mr. Toson's claim that the Ģ��ƵDT consolidation order had the effect of delaying his proceedings, noting that actually it was Mr. Toson's bringing of an unmeritorious appeal that created delay.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Before the Ģ��ƵDT, Mr. Toson, a Ģ��ƵFPA staff member, filed two separate applications, the first challenging the decison by OAIS not to provide him with a copy of its investigation report into his complaint of retaliation by his supervisor; and the second challenging the decision of the Executive Director of Ģ��ƵFPA that there had been no retaliation against Mr. Toson and that his complaint had been closed. By Order No. 188 (Ģ��ƵDT/2021), the Ģ��ƵDT made certain directions/orders in preparation for the hearing of Mr. Toson��s proceedings, including an order that the two cases be consolidated. Mr. Toson appealed the Ģ��ƵDT��s Order of 6 December 2021 to consolidate the two cases.

Legal Principle(s)

Article 2(1) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute provides rights of appeal in respect of a ��judgment rendered by the [Ģ��ƵDT]��. The established jurisprudence of the Ģ��ƵAT is that to to be receivable, an appeal must be from a substantive judgment and not a pre-trial direction or interlocutory order. Such an appeal from a pre-trial direction or interlocutory order may be receivable, however, if it is alleged that the Ģ��ƵDT clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction, or if it assumed a jurisdiction it does not have. The Ģ��ƵDT is inarguably empowered to consolidate cases for its hearing of them. Such an interlocutory direction is capable of review and rectification on appeal from the Ģ��ƵDT��s substantive judgment following such a direction. But that review is limited to situations in which it is subsequently decided that the Ģ��ƵDT erred in fact, law or procedure, or exceeded the jurisiciction vested in it, by either consolidating or declining to consolidate the cases. If the judgment is that the cases were wrongly consolidated and that this amounted to an error of law or constituted one of the other grounds upon which an appeal may be allowed, then the available remedies may include remanding the cases to the Ģ��ƵDT for unconsolidated hearings.

Outcome

Appeal 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

ASR AHMED TOSON

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement