��DT/2013/114

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

Any decision issued by the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims( ABCC) will be a new administrative decision which will supersede the one contested in the present case and which will be subject to this Tribunal��s authority upon the filing of an application by either of the concerned parties.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant sought to reinstate a case that was previously suspended by the former Administrative Tribunal resulting in it never being transferred to the ��DT. Upon seeking that case��s reinstatement, the Applicant sought to have it suspended by the ��DT pending the completion of informal resolution in front of the ABCC.

Legal Principle(s)

Under Resolution 62/253 adopted by the General Assembly on 24 December 2008 and ST/SGB/2009/11, all cases pending before the former Administrative Tribunal as of 1 January 2010 were to be transferred to the ��DT. Consequently, even though this case was not transferred to the ��DT by the former Administrative Tribunal, due to the fact that it was still pending before the former Administrative Tribunal on 31 December 2009, it is properly before the ��DT. The request to transfer it from the former Administrative Tribunal to the Dispute Tribunal is without object and the case is considered reinstated in front of ��DT from 24 October 2012.A case cannot be maintained pending in front of the Tribunal sine die only as an alternative solution to the informal proceedings. When parties decide to resolve a case pending before the Tribunal using an informal process they have to do so within a reasonable amount of time. An informal process initiated after the case was registered is an alternative solution to the formal process and not vice-versa

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

Wisdom-Cofie

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement