�山����

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-026bis. UNAT held that the language of the judgment was clear in its meaning and required no interpretation. UNAT denied the application.

UNAT stated that an Application for Interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to have UNAT re-examine its decision, even though its judgments are final and without appeal, or to have it comment on its decision. UNAT held that the applications made under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 30 of the appeal, with the purpose of either calling into question the decision or having UNAT issue comments on the decision, were not receivable. UNAT held that the use of the word “annul” would not lead to confusion in the mind of a party in good faith because the language of...

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal against the UNDT’s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the UNAT Statute.

UNAT had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-043 on the issue of to which UNDT Registry UNAT remanded Ms Mezoui’s case; two appeals from UNDT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. UNAT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have UNAT interfere with UNDT’s assignment of venue. UNAT held that venue was a matter for the trial court’s discretion, with which it would not interfere. UNAT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. UNAT denied the application for...

Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-UNAT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years’ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. UNAT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by UNAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. UNAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT considered an application of the Secretary-General for interpretation of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-240. UNAT held that the application did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and was therefore manifestly inadmissible. UNAT held that the judgment clearly stated that the utilisation of foreign tax credits constituted a reimbursable payment method and the tax unit had calculated the relevant reimbursable amount at USD 15, 239. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s application and ordered the Secretary-General to pay Ms Johnson USD 15,239 with interest, stating that the...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-185. UNAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by UNDT in its Case Management Order. UNAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of UNDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. UNAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. UNAT rejected the application for interpretation.

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 an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, UNAT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a UNAT judgment. UNAT held that, even if the “cheating” in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi’s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...