570 (2024), Abdurrahman Turk
UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT found that the Secretary-General’s request that it suspend the time limit for filing the answer until the motion for summary judgment was decided was moot because the Secretary-General had already filed the answer. The UNAT observed that the timing of the Secretary-General’s request for a suspension of the time limit had been most impractical as the staff member would not have the opportunity to comment on the motion for summary judgment. The UNAT nonetheless found that, given that the pleadings were complete, it was most practicable to decide this appeal during its regular session as there was no need to resolve this appeal on an urgent basis. The UNAT denied the motion for summary judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The UNDT issued Judgment No. UNDT/2022/068 in which it dismissed the staff member’s application as not receivable because it was duplicative of his earlier application concerning the same contested administrative decision. The staff member appealed. The Secretary-General filed a motion for summary judgment and requested that the Appeals Tribunal suspend the time limit for filing the Secretary-General’s answer. The Secretary-General subsequently filed an answer to the appeal.
Legal Principle(s)
The party facing the draconian finality of a summary judgment must be informed of the possibility and permitted to make submissions about that outcome. Parties must file motions as soon as reasonably possible and should be cognizant of the Appeals Tribunal’s procedures. The summary judgment procedure may be appropriate in matters of receivability. The summary judgment procedure requires a three-judge panel.