±¬ÁÏÍø

As to the appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s Order for expungement of the impugned documents from its case file, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was receivable because, unless the documents were preserved for use at trial, they might be lost with the consequence that the Secretary-General would be unable to use them to establish his allegations of forgery and fraud as he was entitled to. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s Order was, in this respect, effectively irremediable; that this would be a manifestly unreasonable consequence of the Order for the Secretary-General; and that the circumstances were so rare and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not issued a judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The Secretary-General filed appeals against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Orders. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that, generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that an interlocutory appeal is receivable exceptionally in cases where ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in the management of cases. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that one of the goals of the new system of administration of justice is rendering timely judgments; cases before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could seldom proceed if either party were able to appeal interlocutory...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal against Order No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/O/2010/023 by the Secretary-General. Applying the principle that a party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Order had no practical effect following the withdrawal of the request for suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was moot as it was academic and sought an opinion regarding the issues raised in the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT order as not receivable, finding that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

The Secretary-General appealed, asserting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence in ordering suspension of the decision not to renew Mr Onana¡¯s appointment until it determined the substantive application on its merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must therefore be narrowly interpreted; this exception only applies to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending a management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The Secretary-General appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT order. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, where the implementation of an administrative decision is imminent, through no fault or delay on the part of the staff member, and takes place before the five days provided for under Article 13 of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP have elapsed, and where ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is not in a position to make a decision under Article 2. 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, i. e. because it requires further information or time to reflect on the matter, it must have the discretion to grant a suspension of action for these five days. To find otherwise would render Article 2. 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by the Secretary-General of Order Nos. 30 (NBI/2011) and 33 (NBI/2011). Order No. 30 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension of action until 13 May 2011, beyond the date on which the management evaluation was completed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have granted a suspension until 13 May 2011 or until the completion of management evaluation if the latter was earlier. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. Order No. 33 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension until the final determination of the case, and therefore beyond the completion of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on ±¬ÁÏÍøDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...