2014-UNAT-410

2014-UNAT-410, Igbinedion

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established UNAT jurisprudence. However, UNAT also held that parties before UNDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by UNDT remained legally valid until such time as UNAT vacated it. UNAT held that the Secretary-General’s refusal to comply with UNDT’s order was vexatious. UNAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. UNAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT vacated the UNDT referrals for possible action to enforce accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to extend his appointment. UNDT issued Order No. 30, granting his request for suspension of action of the contested decision pending management evaluation. UNDT issued Order No. 33, granting suspension of action until the case was reviewed on the merits. In Order No. 110, UNDT reiterated the suspension of the non-extension decision pending the determination of the merits. UNAT vacated Orders No. 30 and No. 33. In respect of Order No. 30, UNAT concluded that UNDT had exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law, as it had extended the suspension of action beyond the date of completion of management evaluation. Regarding Order No. 33, UNAT concluded that UNDT had exceeded its jurisdiction by extending the suspension of action until the final determination of the case on its merits, in contravention of Article 10. 2 of the UNDT Statute, which excludes such a possibility in cases of appointment, promotion or termination. UN-Habitat did not extend the staff member’s appointment, in contravention of that order, and in judgment No. UNDT/2013/024, UNDT held that there was an obligation to execute UNDT Order No. 33, which had not been met. UNDT found, inter alia, that three UN-Habitat officials and OLA were in contempt of its authority and made referrals for accountability.

Legal Principle(s)

The absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. UNAT sets precedents, to be followed in like cases by the Dispute Tribunal (principle of stare decisis). An interlocutory order by UNDT remains legally valid until such time as it has been vacated by UNAT. Parties before UNDT must obey its binding decisions.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Igbinedion

Entity

UN-Habitat

Case Number(s)

2013-460

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York