ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

UNAT considered an application for interpretation by Mr Shkurtaj on the issue of interest. UNAT referred to Warren (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-059) and Mmata (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-092) for the holding that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement became due. UNAT held that the interest payable was at the US Prime Rate and that an extra five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate if the judgment was not executed within 60 days of its issuance. UNAT held that the date from which interest on the compensation was to be paid at the US Prime Rate was...

UNAT considered Ms Das’s application for Interpretation of judgment with respect to the award of interest on the compensatory damages and any remaining termination benefits and entitlements. UNAT noted that its earlier jurisprudence held that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement becomes due, which in this case is the date of the UNDT judgment. UNAT noted that it had merely affirmed the award of compensatory damages and termination benefits by UNDT and had not initiated it. UNAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General’s claim that...

UNAT considered Ms Dzuverovic’s Application for Interpretation of judgment, specifically the portion that dismissed the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal to redact the recommendations made by UNDT and thus allowed them to remain despite the fact that Ms Dzuverovic’s UNDT application was not receivable. UNAT held that it explained the meaning and scope of its decision to dismiss the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal and not to redact the UNDT recommendations when it stated that the recommendations had no binding consequences on the parties. UNAT found that the judgment was not ambiguous and...

UNAT considered Mrs Sidell’s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, UNAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, UNAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. UNAT denied both Applications.

UNAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-UNAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko’s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...

The Applicant requests clarification as to which date should be considered his separation date from the IMO for purposes of determining his separation entitlements when the IMO Secretary-General opted for in-lieu compensation of 12 months’ net base salary at the rate in effect in March 2016. His request for interpretation refers to the legal consequences of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-782 regarding his separation date which goes beyond an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of a judgment provided under Article 11(3) of the Statute and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. UNAT...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. UNAT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP’s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. UNAT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe’s separate...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation and another for execution of judgment filed by the staff member. Regarding the application for interpretation of judgment, UNAT held that the judgment was clear in its meaning and written in plain and unambiguous language, which left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant, requiring no interpretation. Regarding the application for execution of judgment, UNAT held that there was no need to order execution, namely the Appellant’s reinstatement, since the judgment had already been fully executed by means of compensation, rather than rescission...

UNAT considered an application by UNJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. UNAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. UNAT opined that, in actuality, the UNJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that UNAT erred in making an award of interest, which UNJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of UNAT are final and without appeal, UNAT held that this attempt to...

UNAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, UNAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...