��DT/2017/083

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The Tribunal held that the application was moot and not receivable. Accordingly, the application was rejected. On issue one, for an order for execution of default judgment, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not obtained a default judgment as he alleged. The 14 December 2009 Order that the Applicant considered a default judgment merely directed the Respondent on the procedural requirements for applying to re-enter the proceedings, and which indeed happened with the Respondent filing a reply on 25 January 2010. On 7 June 2010, the Tribunal proceeded to Judgment No. ��DT/2010/105 in which it dismissed the application in its entirety. On issue two ��mediation agreement��, the letter dated 24 May 2010 which the Applicant filed in support of the allegation that he had entered into a mediated agreement with ��DP was not a mediation agreement. Rather, on the face of it, it was an expression of a position on the subject of the ongoing ��DT proceedings from an entity not being a party to the proceedings (a �� Member State).

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant sought: a)An order for execution of a default judgment dated 14 December 2009 including immediate payment of interim relief salaries ��embedded in the default judgment�� b)An order for enforcement of a mediated settlement agreement dated 24 May 2010.

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to art. 32.2 of the Tribunal��s Rules of Procedure, once a judgment is executable under art. 11.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order for execution of the judgment if the judgment requires execution within a certain period of time and such execution has not been carried out.

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

Outcome Extra Text

The application was found to be moot.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Koumoin

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement