2019-Ģ��ƵAT-910

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered Mr Newland��s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-Ģ��ƵAT-820. Ģ��ƵAT 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. Ģ��ƵAT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. Ģ��ƵAT 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. Ģ��ƵAT held that Mr Newland��s claim for free tickets to travel to the place of R&R was unsustainable as the Organisation provided free transportation. Ģ��ƵAT held that Mr Newland��s claim for relocation grant was not part of the execution of the judgment. Ģ��ƵAT declared that the Administration had finalised its execution of judgment No. 2018-Ģ��ƵAT-820.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous Ģ��ƵAT judgment: In judgment No. 2018-Ģ��ƵAT-820, Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal against the decision of Ģ��ƵDT on receivability. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s appeal against Ģ��ƵDT��s failure to determine if the Secretary-General was in non-compliance with the suspension order was well-founded. Ģ��ƵDT had granted relief with the express intention of staying the Applicant��s separation from service until the dispute was resolved. Accordingly, Ģ��ƵAT ordered the Appellant to be paid his full salary and all associated entitlements and benefits for the period from the date of the suspension order under the Ģ��ƵDT judgment, together with interest, within 30 days of the issuance of judgment No. 2018-Ģ��ƵAT-820. Subsequently, the Administration made three payments to the Appellant without the interest mandated by Ģ��ƵAT. The Administration also denied the Appellant��s request for a relocation grant for his previous relocation.

Legal Principle(s)

An application for interpretation of judgment will be admitted if the parties disagree on the meaning or scope of the judgment because it is unclear or ambiguous.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Newland

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement