Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-516 wherein Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion seeking execution was properly filed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the only remaining issue was if it was open to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, in a motion for execution of judgment, to make provision for an interest payment since no provision had been made in the judgment being executed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member was seeking a retroactive award of interest on the payment made to her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request to award retroactive interest did not fall within the scope of the motion for execution presented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion for execution.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to revise her recruitment level from FS-4 to FS-5 with effect from 1 June 2006, the date she had been appointed to the United Nations Organisation Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that a legitimate expectation that she would be offered a FS-5 position was created and that the decision to appoint her at the FS-4 level was thus ¡°erroneous¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered the rescission of the decision to appoint the Applicant at the FS-4 level and her re-appointment at the FS-5 level, as well as payment of the difference between the salary and entitlements of FS-4 and FS-5 from 1 June 2006 to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Alternatively, in the event that rescission was not possible, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered compensation in-lieu and, additionally, compensation for moral damages. The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. The staff member filed a motion for execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.
Legal Principle(s)
Article 11. 4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute provides: ¡°Where the judgment requires execution within a certain period of time and such execution has not been carried out, either party may apply to the Appeals Tribunal for an order for execution of the judgment¡±. In Warren (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-059), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its ¡°judgments shall be executed within 60 days of the date the judgment is issued to the parties¡±. A request for a retrospective award of interest on the payments to be made to a staff member does not fall within the scope of a motion for execution if no interest was granted in the judgment being executed.