2013-UNAT-314, Mpacko

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

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.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

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.

Legal Principle(s)

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.

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

Mpacko

Entity

MINUSTAH

Case Number(s)

2012-354

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York