2013-UNAT-314, Mpacko
UNAT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision and did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.
Ms Mpacko filed an application for suspension of action of the decision to reassign her. UNDT denied her application for suspension of action pending management evaluation of the decision on the grounds that there was no particular urgency as required by Article 2. 2 of the UNDT Statute.
Generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable; however, when it is clear that UNDT has exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, an interlocutory appeal will be receivable.