2013-惇蹋厙AT-354

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

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

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous 惇蹋厙AT judgment: The Applicants contested their Department＊s interpretation and application of the Organisation＊s rules on compensation for overtime work. In judgment No. 惇蹋厙DT/2010/206, 惇蹋厙DT dismissed the application. In judgment No. 2011-惇蹋厙AT-185, 惇蹋厙AT vacated the 惇蹋厙DT judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Subsequently, 惇蹋厙DT issued Order No. 182 (NY/2012) (Case Management Order), in which it made certain orders for the further conduct of the case.

Legal Principle(s)

惇蹋厙DT is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. 惇蹋厙AT will not lightly interfere with the broad discretion of 惇蹋厙DT in the management of cases.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT 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.

Applicants/Appellants

Lebouef et al.

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement