±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established ±¬ÁÏÍøAT jurisprudence. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that parties before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT remained legally valid until such time as ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to comply with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s order was vexatious. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while only final judgments of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeding its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not ¡°clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction¡± when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of ¡°appointment, promotion, or termination¡± excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT clarified, did not mean that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had dismissed the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment.

On the request for the oral hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT actually rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that it was moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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.