2013-UNAT-370

2013-UNAT-370, Bi Bea

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT vacated UNDT’s award of CHF 5,000. UNAT held that, while UNDT had the power to award costs for manifest abuse of proceedings before JAB, UNDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General’s delay in responding to the JAB report constituted a manifest abuse of proceedings. UNAT held that the delay in question was not inordinate and, in any event, a delay in and of itself, did not constitute a manifest abuse of proceedings. UNAT held that, before UNDT could lawfully award costs against the Secretary-General, it was necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay constituted a wrong or improper use of the proceedings of the court, such as proof that it was “frivolous or vexatious” to qualify as manifest abuse of proceedings. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the award of costs of CHF 5,000.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

After having waited several months and having received no response from the Secretary-General on JAB’s recommendation that the staff member be paid compensation for the termination of his indefinite appointment, the staff member filed an appeal seeking the implementation of the recommendations of JAB. UNDT held that, in the absence of any reason given by the Secretary-General for the delay, it was a manifest abuse of the proceedings which entitled the staff member to an award of costs.

Legal Principle(s)

A delay, in and of itself, is not a manifest abuse of proceedings. It is necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay was clearly and unmistakably a wrong or improper use of the proceedings of the court. Proof that the delay was frivolous or vexatious would satisfy this requirement.

Outcome
Appeal granted

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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
Bi Bea
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type