Ãå±±½ûµØ

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 considered Mr Karseboom’s application for interpretation of judgment regarding UNAT’s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the UNDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. UNAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. UNAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

UNAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the paragraphs of the UNDT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal. As a preliminary matter, UNAT refused the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. UNAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. UNAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the UNDT Statute, which notes that...

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...

The Applicant filed a second application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-774 and an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-UNAT-827. Subsequently, the Applicant requested leave to withdraw these two applications. UNAT granted leave to withdraw the applications and directed the Registrar to close the cases.

UNAT considered Mr Newland’s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-UNAT-820. UNAT held that, given that Mr Newland had already been paid Special Post Allowance, Hazard pay, and outstanding interest, the only questions requiring determination were whether he was entitled to payment of Rest and Recuperation (R&R), free tickets, and the relocation grant. UNAT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. UNAT held that Mr Newland’s claim that he was entitled to the payment of R&R was unsustainable, as it was not an accruable benefit or entitlement. UNAT...