2014-惇蹋厙AT-494

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered motions seeking execution of four judgments (judgment No. 2013-惇蹋厙AT-357, judgment No. 2013-惇蹋厙AT-359, judgment No. 2013-惇蹋厙AT-358, and judgment No. 2013-惇蹋厙AT-360). 惇蹋厙AT denied these motions, noting that execution did occur in each of the cases. 惇蹋厙AT 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 惇蹋厙AT Statute and Article 27 of the 惇蹋厙AT RoP. With respect to Ademagic et al. and Mr Longone＊s motion to hold decision letters in abeyance and without legal effect, 惇蹋厙AT 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. 惇蹋厙AT denied all motions.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Prior 惇蹋厙AT decision: On 17 October 2013, 惇蹋厙AT rendered judgments in Malmstr?m et al. (judgment No. 2013-惇蹋厙AT-357), Longone (judgment No. 2013-惇蹋厙AT-358), Ademagic et al. (judgment No. 2013-惇蹋厙AT-359), and McMIlwraith (judgment No. 2013-惇蹋厙AT-360). 惇蹋厙AT remanded the matters to the decision-maker, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management. 惇蹋厙AT 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.

Legal Principle(s)

Where a judgment requires execution within a certain period and such execution has not been carried out, either party may apply to 惇蹋厙AT for an order for execution of the judgment.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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

Sutherland et al

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry