2012-惇蹋厙AT-210

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, 惇蹋厙AT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the 惇蹋厙DT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the 惇蹋厙DT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the 惇蹋厙DT RoP. 惇蹋厙AT set aside the 惇蹋厙DT judgment and remanded the case to 惇蹋厙DT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the 惇蹋厙AT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant initiated two separate proceedings against decisions not to promote him to two different posts and 惇蹋厙DT consolidated both cases. 惇蹋厙DT found both decisions to be unlawful, awarding compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

A lack of a written record at the 惇蹋厙DT or first-instance level will greatly impede 惇蹋厙AT＊s ability to make a decision on appeal.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT 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

Finniss

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement