2018-Ģ��ƵAT-826

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-Ģ��ƵAT-604 (Ocokoru). Ģ��ƵAT noted that in judgment 2015-Ģ��ƵAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the Ģ��ƵDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General��s appeal was not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT held that the execution of the Ģ��ƵDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of Ģ��ƵDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member��s application. Ģ��ƵAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the Ģ��ƵAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute, leaves no doubt that the judgment referred to in the legislation is a judgment by Ģ��ƵAT. Ģ��ƵAT held that, in this case, an executable judgment by Ģ��ƵAT did not exist and thus Article 27 of the Ģ��ƵAT Rules of Procedure did not apply. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application for execution of judgment as not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service. Ģ��ƵDT ordered rescission of that decision and the Applicant��s reinstatement. In the alternative, Ģ��ƵDT ordered compensation in lieu of two years�� net base salary and awarded a further three months�� net base salary for substantive irregularity relating to her complaint of misconduct. Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and dismissed it as not receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

A Ģ��ƵAT judgment rejecting an appeal against a Ģ��ƵDT judgment as not receivable is not an executable judgment. Therefore, Ģ��ƵAT does not have the competence to grant an application for execution of such judgment. The Ģ��ƵDT judgment remains in force, and the execution of that judgment remains within the jurisdiction of Ģ��ƵDT.

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

Ocokoru

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement