UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by UNAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. UNAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the UNAT judgment.
UNAT considered an application of the Secretary-General for interpretation of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-240. UNAT held that the application did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and was therefore manifestly inadmissible. UNAT held that the judgment clearly stated that the utilisation of foreign tax credits constituted a reimbursable payment method and the tax unit had calculated the relevant reimbursable amount at USD 15, 239. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s application and ordered the Secretary-General to pay Ms Johnson USD 15,239 with interest, stating that the...
UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-185. UNAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by UNDT in its Case Management Order. UNAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of UNDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. UNAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. UNAT rejected the application for interpretation.
UNAT considered an application for interpretation by Mr Shkurtaj on the issue of interest. UNAT referred to Warren (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-059) and Mmata (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-092) for the holding that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement became due. UNAT held that the interest payable was at the US Prime Rate and that an extra five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate if the judgment was not executed within 60 days of its issuance. UNAT held that the date from which interest on the compensation was to be paid at the US Prime Rate was...
UNAT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, UNAT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a UNAT judgment. UNAT held that, even if the “cheating” in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi’s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...
UNAT considered Ms Das’s application for Interpretation of judgment with respect to the award of interest on the compensatory damages and any remaining termination benefits and entitlements. UNAT noted that its earlier jurisprudence held that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement becomes due, which in this case is the date of the UNDT judgment. UNAT noted that it had merely affirmed the award of compensatory damages and termination benefits by UNDT and had not initiated it. UNAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General’s claim that...
UNAT considered Ms Dzuverovic’s Application for Interpretation of judgment, specifically the portion that dismissed the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal to redact the recommendations made by UNDT and thus allowed them to remain despite the fact that Ms Dzuverovic’s UNDT application was not receivable. UNAT held that it explained the meaning and scope of its decision to dismiss the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal and not to redact the UNDT recommendations when it stated that the recommendations had no binding consequences on the parties. UNAT found that the judgment was not ambiguous and...
UNAT considered Mrs Sidell’s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, UNAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, UNAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. UNAT denied both Applications.
UNAT considered Mr Karseboom’s application for interpretation of judgment regarding UNAT’s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the UNDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. UNAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. UNAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.
UNAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the paragraphs of the UNDT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by...
