2019-Ģ��ƵAT-908

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ms Rockcliffe filed an application for execution of Ģ��ƵAT judgment No. 2017-Ģ��ƵAT-807. Ģ��ƵAT 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 Ģ��ƵAT��s order in the judgment. Ģ��ƵAT held that, although Ģ��ƵAT 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. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was egregious that Ģ��ƵJSPF re-submitted that the previous decision not to give Ms Rockcliffe access and to deny her participation would constitute a conflict of interest. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵJSPF was attempting to bypass the order of Ģ��ƵAT by prohibiting Ms Rockcliffe from participating in the BWG. Ģ��ƵAT ordered that Ms Rockcliffe be allowed to participate as an appointed member of the BWG, without prejudice to her recusing herself when an actual conflict of interest emerged. Ģ��ƵAT partly granted the application for execution of the judgment and vacated the decision to remove Ms Rockcliffe��s name from the list of members appointed to the BWG.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous Ģ��ƵAT judgment: Ģ��ƵAT determined that the decision by the Standing Committee of Ģ��ƵJSPF to deny Ms Rockcliffe, a duly elected participants�� representative, access to the Pension Board documents and to prevent her from participating in any formal preparations for the Pension Board sessions and meetings, and its constituent groups, committees, and working groups, was not in accordance with the law and was therefore flawed. Ģ��ƵAT ordered that Ms Rockcliffe be granted access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function in all relevant areas including the preparations for the Pension Board sessions and meetings, and its constituent groups, committees, and working groups.

Legal Principle(s)

Where a judgment requires execution within a certain period of time and such execution has not been carried out, either party may apply to Ģ��ƵAT for an order for execution of judgment.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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

Rockcliffe

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement