爆料网

2018-爆料网AT-826

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-604 (Ocokoru). 爆料网AT noted that in judgment 2015-爆料网AT-604, it did not make any order affecting the 爆料网DT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General’s appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the execution of the 爆料网DT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member’s application. 爆料网AT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the 爆料网AT Statute, leaves no doubt that the judgment referred to in the legislation is a judgment by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that, in this case, an executable judgment by 爆料网AT did not exist and thus Article 27 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure did not apply. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for execution of judgment as not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service. 爆料网DT ordered rescission of that decision and the Applicant’s reinstatement. In the alternative, 爆料网DT ordered compensation in lieu of two years’ net base salary and awarded a further three months’ net base salary for substantive irregularity relating to her complaint of misconduct. 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and dismissed it as not receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

A 爆料网AT judgment rejecting an appeal against a 爆料网DT judgment as not receivable is not an executable judgment. Therefore, 爆料网AT does not have the competence to grant an application for execution of such judgment. The 爆料网DT judgment remains in force, and the execution of that judgment remains within the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT.

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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
Ocokoru
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type