2014-UNAT-494, Sutherland et al
UNAT considered motions seeking execution of four judgments (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357, judgment No. 2013-UNAT-359, judgment No. 2013-UNAT-358, and judgment No. 2013-UNAT-360). UNAT denied these motions, noting that execution did occur in each of the cases. UNAT also noted that payment of the moral damages had been effected and a new conversion process had been completed, thus, none of the applications merited an order for execution pursuant to Article 11(4) of the UNAT Statute and Article 27 of the UNAT RoP. With respect to Ademagic et al. and Mr Longone’s motion to hold decision letters in abeyance and without legal effect, UNAT held that the application to hold in abeyance was moot as it had ruled on their motion and the time limit for management evaluation had passed. UNAT denied all motions.
Prior UNAT decision: On 17 October 2013, UNAT rendered judgments in Malmström et al. (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357), Longone (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-358), Ademagic et al. (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-359), and McMIlwraith (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-360). UNAT remanded the matters to the decision-maker, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management. UNAT also awarded compensation and granted a Motion filed by the Secretary-General requesting an extension of the time limit in which to complete the new conversion process.
Where a judgment requires execution within a certain period and such execution has not been carried out, either party may apply to UNAT for an order for execution of the judgment.