2025-惇蹋厙AT-1519

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

The 惇蹋厙AT rejected Mr. Salon＊s argument that the prior 惇蹋厙AT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The 惇蹋厙AT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the 惇蹋厙AT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the 惇蹋厙AT Statute＊s provisions for an application for interpretation.

The 惇蹋厙AT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the 惇蹋厙AT Judgment was clear and there was no reasonable doubt as to the intention of the Appeals Tribunal. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member with the Internal Audit Division, Office of Internal Oversight Services, filed an application for interpretation of Judgment No. 2024-惇蹋厙AT-1432. In the latter 惇蹋厙AT Judgment, the 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the staff member＊s appeal and affirmed 惇蹋厙DT Summary Judgment No. 惇蹋厙DT/2023/029.

Legal Principle(s)

An application for interpretation will be admitted only if the meaning or scope of a judgment is unclear or ambiguous. Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubts about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. If the judgment is comprehensible, whatever the opinion the parties may have about it or its reasoning, an application for interpretation is not admissible.

An application for interpretation is only admissible if the wording of the judgment is not sufficiently clear, owing to ambiguity or incoherence, such that a party might, in good faith, be unsure of the meaning or scope of that judgment.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

Application for interpretation is dismissed.

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

Fernando Salon

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement