2025-UNAT-1582

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT observed that there may have been some ambiguity in paragraph 104 of the UNAT Judgment for which the Secretary-General requested interpretation. The UNAT held that the appropriate interpretation was that when the UNDT renders its new decision on Article 10(5) and 10(6) of the UNDT Statute, then the non-prevailing party may appeal the new UNDT judgment in its entirety, including the UNDT��s holding on the merits.

The UNAT found that the Secretary-General��s application for interpretation is admissible and granted. It further noted that once the UNDT fully exercises its jurisdiction on remedies, all issues are appealable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous UNAT Judgment: A former staff member of the �鶹APP Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), contested the disciplinary sanction to separate him from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity for driving under the influence of alcohol. In Judgment 2025-UNAT-1529, the Appeal Tribunal granted the appeal in part, reversed the UNDT Judgment and remanded the matter of appropriate remedies to the UNDT.

The Secretary-General filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 2025-UNAT-1529 as to whether the Secretary-General could appeal the UNDT judgment in its entirety, including the UNDT��s holding on the merits, after the UNDT issued a new judgment in accordance with the remand.

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 therefore 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.

Full exercise of jurisdiction means the tribunal��s ability and obligation to decide on all aspects of the case brought before it, including both the merits of the case and any preliminary objections. Once the tribunal has fully exercised its jurisdiction in a matter, the rights and obligations, including the right of appeal flowing therefrom, accrue on the parties automatically.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

The application for interpretation is granted.

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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

Olexandr Maruschak

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement