爆料网

2012-爆料网AT-230

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against 爆料网DT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the 爆料网DT Statute had been met. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-爆料网AT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the oral hearing was to be held. 爆料网AT held that this ruling was outside 爆料网DT’s jurisdictional power and consequently held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence. 爆料网AT held that the appeal against Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) was receivable and well-founded. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and rescinded Order No. 081 to the extent that it granted the suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision beyond 5 July 2011, rendering moot Mr Nwuke’s appeals from Order No. 101 and judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/002.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Nwuke contested the decision to appoint another individual as Director of the Regional Integration, Infrastructure and Trade Division (RIITD). In Order No. 081, 爆料网DT ordered the suspension until 17 August 2011 until when the oral hearing of the case was due to be held. In Order No. 101, 爆料网DT dismissed Mr Nwuke’s application for suspension of action, as 爆料网DT did not find that the contested decision was unlawful. In judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/002, 爆料网DT dismissed the application for suspension of action on the basis that it could not conclude that the appointment exercise was unlawful.

Legal Principle(s)

Generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. Appeals against interlocutory decisions, however, they may be named by 爆料网DT, will not be receivable save in exceptional cases where 爆料网DT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. 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 the 爆料网DT RoP have elapsed, and where 爆料网DT is not in a position to make a decision under Article 2(2) of the 爆料网DT statute, i. e. because it requires further information or time to reflect on the matter, it must have the discretion to grant a suspension for action for these five days.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; 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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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.