2022-Ģ��ƵAT-1274

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT held that it was satisfied that execution of the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment (as affirmed by the Ģ��ƵAT) had occurred in Mr. Ozturk��s case. The Administration had complied with the Ģ��ƵAT Judgment and exercised its discretion in determining a new, revised amount to be deducted for child support from Mr. Ozturk's salary on the basis of national court orders.

The Ģ��ƵAT observed that Mr. Ozturk appeared only to disagree with the ��refund calculation�� by the Administration for prior overpayments. However, the Ģ��ƵAT noted that implementation by the Administration of a Tribunal��s order constitutes in itself an administrative decision appealable before the Ģ��ƵDT. Accordingly, recourse for the complaints of Mr. Ozturk regarding the ��refund calculation��, undertaken subsequent to Judgment No. 2018-Ģ��ƵAT-892, is not to be found in an application for execution but rather in Staff Rule 11.2. The latter rule provides the mechanism whereby the complained-of decisions of the Administration can be challenged by the affected staff members.

The Ģ��ƵAT accordingly dismissed the application for execution.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr. Ozturk submitted an application for execution of Judgment No. 2018-Ģ��ƵAT-892, in which the Ģ��ƵAT affirmed a Ģ��ƵDT judgment regarding certain child support payments to be deducted from Mr. Ozturk��s salary.

Legal Principle(s)

Article 11(4) of the Appeals Tribunal��s Statute provides that where the judgement 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 judgement.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

Application for execution of judgment is 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

Cevat Ozturk

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement