2015-UNAT-560, Staedtler
UNAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General’s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler’s contention that UNAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, UNAT held that there was no merit to this contention and that the Orders came within the UNDT’s competence to issue appropriate case management orders. UNAT held that since UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing Order No. 116, the appeal was not receivable. UNAT held that: the manner in which the parties should conduct themselves during the proceedings is a routine topic for a case management order; UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing Order no. 126; and the appeal of that Order was not receivable. UNAT held that the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.
UNDT Order: Mr Staedler brought proceedings contesting the decision of the Office of Staff Legal Assistance to decline to represent him in a case. In the course of those proceedings, in Order No. 116 (GVA/2014) UNDT granted the Secretary-General’s motion to participate in the proceedings and to accept his reply as part of the UNDT record. In Order No. 126 (GVA/2014), UNDT denied Mr Staedler’s motions for reconsideration and for permission to respond to the Respondent’s reply and admonished Mr Staedler to refrain from making any comments about Counsel for the Respondent in his submissions.
UNAT may receive interlocutory appeals arising from preliminary proceedings in exceptional cases where UNDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.