2020-惇蹋厙AT-998

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered an appeal of 惇蹋厙DT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by 惇蹋厙AT on her application for a suspension of action. 惇蹋厙AT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before 惇蹋厙DT. 惇蹋厙AT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In addition, 惇蹋厙AT held that Ms Barud was not entitled to appeal against such an interlocutory order, noting that it was not a case in which it was contended that 惇蹋厙DT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. 惇蹋厙AT held that hearing from the Secretary-General could not have repaired the failure to meet the essential requirement of urgency. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT Order.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ms Barud contested the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment and filed an application for suspension of action prior to his contract expiring. In Order No. 087 (NBI/2019), 惇蹋厙DT rejected her application.

Legal Principle(s)

The decision of the 惇蹋厙DT on an application for suspension of action is not subject to appeal, with the narrow exception of when 惇蹋厙DT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Fundamental to the question of the admissibility of evidence is the requirement that the evidence must be relevant to the issue to be decided.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Barud

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement