2013-Ģ��ƵAT-354

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-Ģ��ƵAT-185. Ģ��ƵAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by Ģ��ƵDT in its Case Management Order. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of Ģ��ƵDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. Ģ��ƵAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. Ģ��ƵAT rejected the application for interpretation.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous Ģ��ƵAT judgment: The Applicants contested their Department��s interpretation and application of the Organisation��s rules on compensation for overtime work. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2010/206, Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application. In judgment No. 2011-Ģ��ƵAT-185, Ģ��ƵAT vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Subsequently, Ģ��ƵDT issued Order No. 182 (NY/2012) (Case Management Order), in which it made certain orders for the further conduct of the case.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵDT is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. Ģ��ƵAT will not lightly interfere with the broad discretion of Ģ��ƵDT in the management of cases.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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.

Applicants/Appellants

Lebouef et al.

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement