010/11 Efoua Mbozo'o Samuel v. the Pan African Parliament AFRICAN UNION AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS IN THE MATTER OF EFOUA MBOZO'O SAMUEL V. THE PAN AFRICAN PARLIAMENT APPLICATION No. 010/2011 Decision The Court composed of: Gérard NIYUNGEKO, President; Sophia A.B. AKUFFO, Vice-President; Jean MUTSINZI, Bernard M. NGOEPE, Modibo T. GUINDO, Fatsah OUGUERGOUZ, Duncan TAMBALA, Elsie N. THOMPSON, Sylvain ORE -- Judges; and Robert ENO -- Acting Registrar, In the matter of: EFOUA MBOZO'O SAMUEL V. THE PAN AFRICAN PARLIAMENT Having deliberated, hereby decides as follows: 1. By an application dated 6th June, 2011, Efoua Mbozo'o Samuel, domiciled in Yaoundé, Cameroon, brought before the Court, a case against the Pan African Parliament, alleging breach of paragraph 4 of his contract of employment and of Article 13 (a) and (b) of the OAU Staff Regulations, and improper refusal to renew his contract and to re-grade him. 2. Pursuant to Rule 34 (1) of the Rules of Court, the Registry acknowledged receipt of the application by letter dated 7th June, 2011. 3. By letter dated 4th August, 2011, the Registry requested the Applicant to specify the human rights violations he alleges, to disclose the evidence he intends to adduce as well as evidence of exhaustion of local remedies in accordance with Rule 34 (1) and (4) of the Rules of Court. 4. By letter dated 22nd August, 2011, the Applicant responded to the Registry by making further submissions underlining allegations of breach, by the Pan African Parliament, of: a. Paragraph 4 of his contract of Employment and Article 13 (a) and (b) of the OAU Staff regulations by refusing to renew his contract and advertising his post even though he had satisfactory evaluation reports; and b. Executive Council Decision EX.CL/DEC 348 (XI) of June 2007 with regard to the remuneration and grading of his employment. 5. Article 3 (1) of the Protocol provides that "the jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned." 6. On the facts of this case and the prayers sought by the Applicant, it is clear that this application is exclusively grounded upon breach of employment contract in accordance with Article 13 (a) and (b) of the OAU Staff Regulations, for which the Court lacks jurisdiction in terms of Article 3 of the Protocol. This is therefore a case which, in terms of the OAU Staff Regulations, is within the competence of the Ad hoc 1

Select target paragraph3