Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 the staff member¡¯s application for correction of judgment. The staff member claimed that there was a mistake in paragraph 2 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment, contending that it erroneously refers to the COS instead of the CMS. The staff member also contended that the reference to MINUSCA on page 4 is erroneous since the mission he was assigned to was MINUSMA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that paragraph 2 of the judgment merely quoted the facts ¡°as found by the Dispute Tribunal¡±, with a footnote reference to the paragraphs quoted from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Secretary-General...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal while the application for revision before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was still pending. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution filed by Mr Kallon, seeking the execution of the non-pecuniary aspects of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no need to order execution as the judgment had been executed in full since the order of rescission did not require execution by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the rescission of the contested administrative decisions took effect as the direct consequence of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in Mr Kallon¡¯s request for execution and, therefore, dismissed his request for costs against the Secretary-General for abuse...

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...

The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-604 (Ocokoru). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in judgment 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute...

The Applicant filed a second application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-774 and an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-827. Subsequently, the Applicant requested leave to withdraw these two applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted leave to withdraw the applications and directed the Registrar to close the cases.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Newland¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-820. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given that Mr Newland had already been paid Special Post Allowance, Hazard pay, and outstanding interest, the only questions requiring determination were whether he was entitled to payment of Rest and Recuperation (R&R), free tickets, and the relocation grant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Newland¡¯s claim that he was entitled to the payment of R&R was unsustainable, as it was not an accruable benefit or entitlement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ms Rockcliffe filed an application for execution of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-807. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the crux of the matter for determination was whether Ms Rockcliffe¡¯s appointment to and her removal from, the Budget Working Group (BWG) in 2018 fell within the scope of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s order in the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had not explicitly addressed the issue of conflict of interest in its judgment, it impliedly rejected it by means of applying the law in force at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was egregious that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF re-submitted that the previous decision not to give Ms Rockcliffe...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Bezziccheri¡¯s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT can be revised, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...