Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that an Application for Interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT re-examine its decision, even though its judgments are final and without appeal, or to have it comment on its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applications made under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 30 of the appeal, with the purpose of either calling into question the decision or having Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT issue comments on the decision, were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the use of the word ¡°annul¡± would not lead to confusion in the mind of a party in good faith because the language of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation by Mr Shkurtaj on the issue of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Warren (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-059) and Mmata (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-092) for the holding that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement became due. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the interest payable was at the US Prime Rate and that an extra five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate if the judgment was not executed within 60 days of its issuance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the date from which interest on the compensation was to be paid at the US Prime Rate was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Das¡¯s application for Interpretation of judgment with respect to the award of interest on the compensatory damages and any remaining termination benefits and entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that its earlier jurisprudence held that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement becomes due, which in this case is the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had merely affirmed the award of compensatory damages and termination benefits by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and had not initiated it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s Application for Interpretation of judgment, specifically the portion that dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal to redact the recommendations made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus allowed them to remain despite the fact that Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it explained the meaning and scope of its decision to dismiss the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal and not to redact the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT recommendations when it stated that the recommendations had no binding consequences on the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the judgment was not ambiguous and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mrs Sidell¡¯s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied both Applications.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Fedorchenko¡¯s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...

The Applicant requests clarification as to which date should be considered his separation date from the IMO for purposes of determining his separation entitlements when the IMO Secretary-General opted for in-lieu compensation of 12 months¡¯ net base salary at the rate in effect in March 2016. His request for interpretation refers to the legal consequences of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-782 regarding his separation date which goes beyond an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of a judgment provided under Article 11(3) of the Statute and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP¡¯s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe¡¯s separate...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation and another for execution of judgment filed by the staff member. Regarding the application for interpretation of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment was clear in its meaning and written in plain and unambiguous language, which left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant, requiring no interpretation. Regarding the application for execution of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no need to order execution, namely the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement, since the judgment had already been fully executed by means of compensation, rather than rescission...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that, in actuality, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT erred in making an award of interest, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT are final and without appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this attempt to...