色库TV

2025-UNAT-1603

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered to rule on a request for suspension of action which is within its jurisdiction and competence, so there was no basis for the UNAT to consider the appeals unless and until there is a timely application from a decision on the merits. At such time, the UNAT may consider, if appropriate, the due process issues raised in the currently appeal by the former ISA staff members.

The UNAT noted that oral hearings would not assist the Tribunal with the fair and expeditious disposition of the case as there is no justification to hold oral hearings when receivability is mainly in dispute.

The UNAT denied the Secretary-General’s request for an award of costs as the Secretary-General did not attempt to demonstrate that Dr. Ardito and Dr. Pusztai manifestly abused the appeals process as required by Article 9 (2) of the Statue of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal.

The UNAT dismissed the appeals as not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Dr. Ardito and Dr. Pusztai, former staff members of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), contested a decision by the ISA Joint Appeals Board, in which it denied a joint request for suspension of action to suspend termination of their appointments, and cessation of any recruitment or reclassification of their posts.

In decision ISA/JAB/Joint Appellants/2025 the JAB denied the request. The JAB recalled that under the relevant ISA Staff Rule 11.2(c)(ii), a request for suspension of action must meet two conditions: (i) the contested decision has not been implemented, and (ii) its implementation would result in irreparable injury. The JAB concluded that suspension of action was not possible because the contested decision, namely the termination of the staff members’ appointments, had already been executed.

Dr. Ardito and Dr. Pusztai both appealed the JAB’s denial of their suspension of application requests.

Legal Principle(s)

An appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Joint Appeals Board denying a request for suspension of action is not within the limited jurisdiction of the Appeals Tribunal, unless the Joint Appeals Board has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

Outcome Extra Text

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.