2021-惇蹋厙AT-1145

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained 惇蹋厙DT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the 惇蹋厙DT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the 惇蹋厙DT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. 惇蹋厙AT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member filed an application with the 惇蹋厙DT for suspension of action pending management evaluation. The Administration had decided that it would deduct the monthly sum of $5,032 from the staff member＊s salary, pursuant to a final judgment from a Florida Court directing the latter to pay the above sum in child support. The 惇蹋厙DT issued an order denying his request, finding the impugned administrative decision lawful. The tribunal held the request did not meet the requirements of Article 2(2) of the 惇蹋厙DT Statute, which includes that the contested administrative decision is prima facie unlawful, that the matter appears to be of particular urgency and that the implementation of the decision would appear to cause irreparable damage. 惇蹋厙DT explained the Florida Court order was authentic and final in terms, and therefore the impugned decision had a legal basis, which means it can＊t be considered prima facie unlawful.

Legal Principle(s)

An application for suspension of action must show that the contested administrative decision is prima facie unlawful, that the matter appears to be of particular urgency and that the implementation of the decision would cause irreparable harm. If the legal basis for an administrative decision emanates from a final judgment of a national court directing a staff member to pay child support, such administrative decision cannot be said to be prima facie unlawful. An appeal against an interlocutory order or an application for suspension of action is not receivable unless the Appellant shows that the 惇蹋厙DT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

Outcome Extra Text

Appeal is dismissed, and 惇蹋厙DT Order is upheld.

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

Jacques Armand

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement