2014-UNAT-466

2014-UNAT-466, Saffir and Ginivan

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging UNDT’s determination that the decision not to investigate UNSU election matters was receivable. UNAT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. UNAT noted that although UNDT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General’s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, UNDT found in favour of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General, there was no right to appeal even if the judgment contained errors of law or fact, including with respect to its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT dismissed both appeals as not receivable by majority, with Judge Chapman dissenting.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicants contested the Secretary-General’s refusal to conduct an investigation into the irregularities surrounding the June 2011 �山��Staff Union (UNSU) elections, in light of the failure of the UNSU Arbitration Committee to adequately address the matter. UNDT found, inter alia, that the refusal to carry out the requested investigation was an administrative decision subject to review. Nonetheless, UNDT held that such a decision was lawful since neither the UNSU Statute nor the jurisprudence indicated that the Secretary-General was obligated to intervene in the conduct of UNSU elections.

Legal Principle(s)

A party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. Where there is no negative impact, there is no right to appeal even if the judgment contained errors of law or fact, including with respect to its jurisdiction or competence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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

Saffir and Ginivan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry Location :