��DT/2009/021

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��DT preliminarily rejected the Applicant��s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the ��DT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, ��DT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant��s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, ��DT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December 2008 that the General Assembly created a body that is purely advisory and does not take any administrative decisions that could be referred to ��DT. Thus, ��DT rejected the applicant��s request in this regard as well. With respect to the second application, ��DT preliminarily held that the application was not time-barred. ��DT noted that since JC was elected in due form and that the Applicant was quite rightly not declared elected, there was no point in the Applicant, as the defeated candidate, requesting rescission of the decision limiting the appointment of members of the Internal Justice Council to a period of four years; only the members themselves might have reason to contest such a decision. ��DT rejected the second application.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant submitted two applications. In the first application, the Applicant contested the decision to publish the appointment of JC as a member of the Internal Justice Council and requested that all decisions taken by that Council be rescinded. In the second application, the Applicant requested recission of the decision to appoint the five members of the Internal Justice Council for a period of four years.

Legal Principle(s)

Any �� staff member has the right to be a candidate to represent the staff.

Outcome

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Campos

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry