2021-Ģ��ƵAT-1148

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Secretary-General of IMO is essentially seeking comments on the Ģ��ƵAT judgment under the guise of an application for interpretation, something Ģ��ƵAT expressly proscribed in Kasmani. The Ģ��ƵAT��s Fogarty Judgment clearly and unambiguously explicates the nature of the difficulty in a manner that requires no further interpretation. There is no ambiguity, uncertainty or irreconcilable conflict on the question remanded or the reasons for the remand or in the comments in paragraph 25 of the Fogarty Judgment that justifies an application for interpretation. While the applications for interpretation may be misplaced, they do not constitute a manifest abuse. In the circumstances, an award of costs is not justifiable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

2021-Ģ��ƵAT-1148, in which Ģ��ƵAT rejected applications for interpretation of its judgments remanding the cases to SAB of IMO to comply with jurisdictional requirements.

Legal Principle(s)

Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment. But if the judgment is comprehensible, whatever the opinion the parties may have about it or its meaning, an application for interpretation is not admissible. An application for interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to contest a final judgment or to obtain comments on that judgment. The Judgments in Spinardi et al and Fogarty do not set aside any of IMO��s staff rules or rule on their legality; nor do they order the SAB of IMO to assume a power that it otherwise did not have. The Ģ��ƵAT��s direction to the SAB of IMO to do what is legally necessary to comply with the jurisdictional requirements conferred no rights or additional powers on the SAB or the Secretary-General of IMO.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

Applications for interpretation not admissible and dismissed

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

Secretary-General of IMO

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement