2019-惇蹋厙AT-908

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

Ms Rockcliffe filed an application for execution of 惇蹋厙AT judgment No. 2017-惇蹋厙AT-807. 惇蹋厙AT held that the crux of the matter for determination was whether Ms Rockcliffe＊s appointment to and her removal from, the Budget Working Group (BWG) in 2018 fell within the scope of 惇蹋厙AT＊s order in the judgment. 惇蹋厙AT held that, although 惇蹋厙AT had not explicitly addressed the issue of conflict of interest in its judgment, it impliedly rejected it by means of applying the law in force at the time. 惇蹋厙AT held that it was egregious that 惇蹋厙JSPF re-submitted that the previous decision not to give Ms Rockcliffe access and to deny her participation would constitute a conflict of interest. 惇蹋厙AT held that 惇蹋厙JSPF was attempting to bypass the order of 惇蹋厙AT by prohibiting Ms Rockcliffe from participating in the BWG. 惇蹋厙AT ordered that Ms Rockcliffe be allowed to participate as an appointed member of the BWG, without prejudice to her recusing herself when an actual conflict of interest emerged. 惇蹋厙AT partly granted the application for execution of the judgment and vacated the decision to remove Ms Rockcliffe＊s name from the list of members appointed to the BWG.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous 惇蹋厙AT judgment: 惇蹋厙AT determined that the decision by the Standing Committee of 惇蹋厙JSPF to deny Ms Rockcliffe, a duly elected participants＊ representative, access to the Pension Board documents and to prevent her from participating in any formal preparations for the Pension Board sessions and meetings, and its constituent groups, committees, and working groups, was not in accordance with the law and was therefore flawed. 惇蹋厙AT ordered that Ms Rockcliffe be granted access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function in all relevant areas including the preparations for the Pension Board sessions and meetings, and its constituent groups, committees, and working groups.

Legal Principle(s)

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

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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

Rockcliffe

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement