爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the paragraphs of the 爆料网DT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by adding additional relief in the form of an award of interest. 爆料网AT held that the proper procedure to challenge the 爆料网DT judgment, which clearly failed to adjudicate his claim for interest, was to bring an appeal before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the staff member’s claim for additional moral damages as he had not filed a cross-appeal against the 爆料网DT award. 爆料网AT dismissed the staff member’s claim for punitive damages as having no legal foundation as 爆料网AT is not competent to award punitive damages. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant submitted an application for interpretation of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2016/096. 爆料网DT found that the application was receivable and that the Secretary-General had correctly calculated compensation from the time of separation but failed to add the accrued interest to which the Applicant was entitled. 爆料网DT ordered the Secretary-General to add pre-judgment interest on the compensation already paid from the date of separation to the date of payment.
Legal Principle(s)
Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubt about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. If a judgment is comprehensible, whatever opinion the parties may have about it or its reasons, an application for interpretation is not admissible.