Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ

2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1540

Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the unexplained delay of almost a year in filing the request for interpretation would alone cause the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT to reject it. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that, in addition, the request for interpretation lacked a jurisdictional basis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the staff member had demonstrated no equivocality or lack of clarity of the Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT was of the view that the request for execution relied on the staff member¡¯s success in having the earlier Judgment interpreted in the manner he sought and, therefore, his request for execution was moot. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT further noted that the Judgment had been executed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the staff member was represented by counsel and was not a litigant in person when he criticized the chief administrative officer before the governing body of the Organization. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that even if he were covered by the provisions of the Code of Conduct, it was doubtful whether his conduct, while not decorous, went to the extent intended to be prohibited.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered that the staff member¡¯s delay in bringing the application for interpretation and execution was not misconduct in terms of the Code of Conduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the application for interpretation and execution.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member contested a decision to summarily dismiss him. In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2021/154, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT found the contested decision unlawful and, in Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2022/025, it granted remedies. In Judgment No. 2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1346, the Appeals Tribunal modified the remedies payable to him.

The staff member filed an application for interpretation and execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

There is no statutory time limit for making applications for interpretation and execution. However, unreasonable and unexplained delay in doing so may cause the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s discretion to be exercised against an applicant, as a matter of fairness and justice to the Secretary-General.

An interpretation application must establish that the meaning or scope of the judgment as worded is equivocal or otherwise so unclear that the parties cannot reasonably agree on what it requires either, or both, to do to satisfy or implement the judgment.

An application for interpretation cannot be an opportunity to re-litigate the issues or the remedies allowed by the judgment. Nor can an application for interpretation be a disguised application for revision of a judgment, changing its outcome substantively.

An application for revision is the only mechanism by which the outcome of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT judgment can be modified. Even then, a final judgment can only be altered (revised) under very tightly defined conditions.

The Code of Conduct governs the conduct of representatives and litigants in person (that is, unrepresented staff or former staff) in proceedings. No behavioural responsibilities are placed on parties unless they are unrepresented.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

Application for interpretation and execution 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT 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.