爆料网

2014-爆料网AT-488

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 233, which contended that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. 爆料网AT noted that Article 36 of the 爆料网DT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the 爆料网DT Order, as there was no case before 爆料网DT to which Article 36 could apply. 爆料网AT further noted that Article 36 does not allow 爆料网DT to augment its jurisdiction in violation of Article 2 of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT Order in its entirety, with the exception of 爆料网DT’s closure of the case in which the application was withdrawn.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ms Chocobar contested the selection of another candidate for a P-4 position and then filed a motion seeking leave to withdraw the application following a confidential settlement agreement. In Order No. 233 (NY/2014), 爆料网DT noted that, in light of the withdrawal, there was no matter for adjudication by 爆料网DT and therefore declared the case was closed. However, 爆料网DT proceeded to make findings regarding a substantive issue raised in Ms Chocobar’s application and found that the Organisation’s continued use of pre-approved rosters for both generic job openings and position-specific openings was incorrect. Pursuant to Article 7 of the 爆料网DT Statute and Article 36 of its Rules of Procedure, 爆料网DT ordered that the matter be referred to the Secretary-General for urgent consideration, including a referral to the President of the General Assembly, if the Secretary-General deemed it necessary to do so.

Legal Principle(s)

At the heart of 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction is its statutory remit to judicially review decisions which affect the contractual entitlements of employees. 爆料网AT and 爆料网DT shall not have any powers beyond those conferred under their respective statutes.

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 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.

Applicants/Appellants
Chocobar
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type