|
|
 |
|
|
Application for interpretation (6,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Application for interpretation
Total judgments found: 54
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4732
136th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4567.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4567
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, and as recalled in Judgment 4567, consideration 3, an application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed (see, for example, Judgments 4409, consideration 6, 3984, consideration 10, 3822, consideration 5, and 3014, consideration 3). Moreover, ordinarily such an application can concern only the decision in a judgment, and not the grounds thereof. It is, however, accepted that it may additionally concern the grounds if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision (see aforementioned Judgments 4409, consideration 6, 3984, consideration 10, and 3822, consideration 5, and also Judgments 3564, consideration 1, 3271, consideration 4, and 2483, consideration 3). The Tribunal notes that these requirements are actually set out at the beginning of the form used to file an application for interpretation.
Given that the arguments put forward by the complainant in relation to Judgment 4567 refer exclusively to the grounds thereof and seek to criticise their content, whereas the decision in that judgment – stating that “[t]he application for interpretation is dismissed” – makes no reference to them, those arguments are irrelevant under the aforementioned case law. In addition, contrary to the complainant’s assertions, that decision, worded as just indicated, is not at all uncertain or ambiguous and therefore does not require interpretation by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2483, 3014, 3271, 3564, 3822, 3984, 4409, 4567
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment 4657
136th Session, 2023
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed applications for interpretation and for review of Judgment 4074.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4074
Keywords:
application for interpretation; application for review; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant’s application for interpretation of Judgment 4074 is misconceived. An application for interpretation raises for consideration the meaning of the decision contained in a judgment and potentially its legal effect (see Judgments 4409, consideration 6, 3822, consideration 5, and 3014, consideration 3). In exceptional cases (and this case is not such a case) such an application can concern the grounds of the judgment as well but only if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision (see Judgments 4567, consideration 3, 3564, consideration 1, and 2483, consideration 3). In the present case the orders actually made were clear and unambiguous. No occasion arises for their interpretation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2483, 3014, 3564, 3822, 4074, 4409, 4567
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment 4656
136th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: ITU has filed an application for the interpretation of order 2 of the decision contained in Judgment 4515.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]n application is receivable only if the meaning of order 2 gives rise to uncertainty or ambiguity about its meaning or purport to such an extent that its execution is impossible (see Judgment 1306, consideration 2) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306
Keywords:
application for interpretation; condition; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4515
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment 4568
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4440.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, and as was recalled in Judgment 4567, also delivered in public today, an application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed (see, for example, Judgments 3014, consideration 3, 3822, consideration 5, 3984, consideration 10, and 4409, consideration 6). Moreover, such an application can ordinarily concern only the decision in a judgment, and not the grounds thereof. Indeed, it can concern the grounds of the judgment as well only if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision (see Judgments 2483, consideration 3, 3271, consideration 4, 3564, consideration 1, and also aforementioned Judgments 3822, consideration 5, 3984, consideration 10, and 4409, consideration 6). The Tribunal notes that these requirements are actually set out at the beginning of the form used to file an application for interpretation.
The complainant’s arguments concerning Judgment 4440 focus entirely on its grounds, whereas the decision in that judgment – stating that “[t]he application for review is dismissed” – makes no reference to them. These arguments are therefore irrelevant under the case law recalled above. Moreover, the meaning of the decision in Judgment 4440, worded as indicated above, is not at all ambiguous or uncertain and therefore does not require interpretation by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2483, 3014, 3271, 3564, 3822, 3984, 4409, 4440, 4567
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment 4567
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4370.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed (see, for example, Judgments 3014, consideration 3, 3822, consideration 5, 3984, consideration 10, and 4409, consideration 6). Moreover, such an application can ordinarily concern only the decision contained in a judgment, and not the grounds thereof. Indeed, it can concern the grounds of the judgment as well only if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision (see Judgments 2483, consideration 3, 3271, consideration 4, 3564, consideration 1, and also aforementioned Judgments 3822, consideration 5, 3984, consideration 10, and 4409, consideration 6). The Tribunal notes
that these requirements are actually set out at the beginning of the form used to file an application for interpretation.
The complainant’s criticisms relate principally to the grounds of Judgment 4370 whereas the decision in that judgment – stating that “[t]he complaint is dismissed” – makes no reference to them. His criticisms are therefore irrelevant under the case law recalled above.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2483, 3014, 3271, 3564, 3822, 3984, 4370, 4409
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment 4409
132nd Session, 2021
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4215.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]t appears that, by this application, the complainant is not so much seeking, as he submits, a clarification of the meaning of the judgment in question – which is entirely unnecessary – as to obtain an increase in the amount of the awards made in his favour. Plainly, an application for interpretation cannot seek to lead the Tribunal to amend its original judgment.
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can concern only the decision contained in a judgment and not the grounds therefor. It is, however, accepted that such an application may additionally concern the grounds if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision (see Judgments 2483, consideration 3, 3271, consideration 4, 3564, consideration 1, 3822, consideration 5, or 3984, consideration 10).
Furthermore, an application for interpretation will be receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that its execution is impossible (see, for example, Judgments 1306, consideration 2, 3014, consideration 3, and also aforementioned Judgments 3271, consideration 4, 3822, consideration 5, and 3984, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306, 2483, 3014, 3271, 3564, 3822, 3984
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed;
Considerations 3-5
Extract:
It should be noted that OTIF, by a decision adopted by its Administrative Committee at its session on 27 and 28 June 2017 and notified by its Secretary General to the Director-General of the International Labour Office (ILO) by a letter of 17 January 2018, has withdrawn its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, as set out in Judgments 1043, consideration 3, and 4141, considerations 2 to 4, that withdrawal took effect on the date of the deliberation of the Governing Body of the ILO taking note of the decision in question, which in the present case took place on 13 March 2018.
Although the Tribunal had jurisdiction to rule on the complaint that gave rise to Judgment 4215, which had been filed before that date and which OTIF had expressly excluded from the scope of its withdrawal decision, since that date, the Tribunal has no longer been competent to hear new complaints against that Organisation.
However, it must be considered that, where, as in this case, the Tribunal has delivered a judgment on a complaint against an international organisation which has since withdrawn from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it nevertheless remains competent to hear any applications for interpretation of that judgment. The Tribunal is, by definition, the only body capable of interpreting its judgments, should that be necessary. For similar reasons, the Tribunal also remains competent to hear applications for execution or review that may be brought in respect of a judgment delivered in the same circumstances.
Notwithstanding the date on which it was filed, this application does therefore fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and it is noted that the Organisation does not raise any objections on this point in its reply.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1043, 4141, 4215
Keywords:
application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 4388
131st Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: IFAD filed an application for interpretation of Judgments 4341 and 4342.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In the usual course, an application for interpretation concerns only the meaning and thus effect of the decision (and the orders contained therein) unless there has been an incorporation of a consideration into that decision (see Judgment 3822, considerations 4 and 5). In this case, there has been such an incorporation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3822
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application filed by the organisation; application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4292
130th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The FAO has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4065.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
In its application for interpretation, the FAO states that while it notes that the five points of the decision in Judgment 4065 are expressed in clear terms, it became apparent from the exchanges of correspondence between the parties (referred to in the foregoing considerations) that they have differing views regarding what the decision requires them to do. This, it states, is because “there appears to be some ambiguity as to what actions are required as a consequence of Point 1 [of the Decision], having regard to Consideration 8 of the Judgment”, on which it requests the Tribunal’s guidance.
The FAO is entitled to apply for the interpretation of consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 as it has done in this instance as, according to the Tribunal’s case law, as stated, for example in Judgment 3984, consideration 10, although ordinarily an application for interpretation can concern only the decision contained in a judgment, it may additionally concern the grounds if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision. In this instance, point 2 of the decision in Judgment 4065 incorporated consideration 8 of Judgment 4065. The critical question is whether the application is receivable. As the case law further states, in the said consideration 10 of Judgment 3984, such an application is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed.
The application for interpretation is irreceivable. Consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 is clear and unambiguous. [...] It is not within the Tribunal’s purview to provide an advisory opinion or guidance concerning the steps that are to follow the discussion or what should happen if events unfold in a certain way. The Tribunal reiterates that both the FAO and the complainant must approach the implementation of its order in point 2 and the analysis contained in consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 in a rational, sensible and balanced way, and, as a paramount consideration, do so lawfully (see Judgment 3989, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 3989, 4065
Keywords:
advisory opinion; application for interpretation; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 4235
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 4093.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed (see, for example, Judgments 1306, consideration 2, 3014, consideration 3, 3271, consideration 4, and 3822, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306, 3014, 3271, 3822
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment 4187
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4052.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The application for interpretation is irreceivable. According to the Tribunal’s established case law, “an application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed (see, for example, Judgments 1306, under 2, 3014, under 3, or [...] 3271, under 4)” (see Judgment 3984, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306, 3014, 3271, 3984
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant’s request for clarification under (a) in consideration 3 [...] is an attempt to relitigate a question which was already decided in Judgment 4052 and which is therefore res judicata.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4052
Keywords:
application for interpretation; res judicata;
Judgment 4179
128th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 3879.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an application for the interpretation of any aspect of a judgment will not be receivable where the judgment is clear and unambiguous and the application is merely filed “to obtain an opinion on a legal issue, to obtain a reply from the Tribunal to a question that it was not required to address in the context of the judgment to which the application relates, or to circumvent an internal procedure in which disputes regarding the execution of the judgment could be resolved in accordance with the adversarial principle” (see, for example, Judgment 3014, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3014
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Point 2 [of the decision] would not be ambiguous merely because the parties subjectively may not agree on its meaning or effect, as the complainant suggests. Objectively, point 2 of the decision in Judgment 3879 is clear and unambiguous. It means that, the Tribunal having set aside the complainant’s 2011 PACE appraisal report and ordered its removal from his file, it is not to be taken into account as a valid PACE appraisal report affecting any decisions or actions concerning the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3879
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment 4092
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to order WHO to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Judgment 3871 and, in particular, to reinstate him with all legal consequences.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]f WHO considered that the decision in Judgment 3871 presented any uncertainty or ambiguity on this point, it ought to have filed with the Tribunal an application for interpretation of the judgment, but it did not do this.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment 4079
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; permanent appointment; termination of employment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can only concern the decision in a judgment and not the grounds therefor (see, for example, Judgment 3984, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984
Keywords:
application for interpretation; receivability of application;
Judgment 4078
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; fixed-term; termination of employment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can only concern the decision in a judgment and not the grounds therefor (see, for example, Judgment 3984, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). The application for interpretation is, on the face of the record, irreceivable as it does not put in issue the terms of the orders made in the decision in Judgment 3929.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3929, 3984
Keywords:
application for interpretation; receivability of application;
Judgment 4077
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; reinstatement;
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can only concern the decision in a judgment and not the grounds therefor (see, for example, Judgment 3984, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). The application for interpretation is, on the face of the record, irreceivable as it does not put in issue the terms of the orders made in the decision in Judgment 3928.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3928, 3984
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment 4076
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed and application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3927 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can only concern the decision in a judgment and not the grounds therefor (see, for example, Judgment 3984, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). The application for interpretation is, on the face of the record, irreceivable as it does not put in issue the terms of the orders made in the decision in Judgment 3927.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3927, 3984
Keywords:
application for interpretation; receivability of application;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Judgment 3989
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The EPO has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 3972.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3972
Keywords:
application filed by the organisation; application for interpretation;
Judgment 3987
126th Session, 2018
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3913.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3913
Keywords:
application for interpretation; application for review; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 2
Extract:
In her pleas in the application for interpretation and review, the complainant acknowledges that ordinarily an application for interpretation must concern an interpretation of the decision and not the Tribunal’s reasons. Nothing is said in the pleas about the meaning of the decision requiring interpretation, nor does the complainant argue that this is one of those rare cases when the considerations can be considered as part of the interpretation of the decision. Accordingly nothing more need be said about the application for interpretation.
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment 3985
126th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants have filed an application for execution of Judgment 3883 and the ILO has filed an application for interpretation of that judgment.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3883
Keywords:
application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 3984
126th Session, 2018
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The ACP Group has filed an application for review and interpretation of Judgment 3845.
Consideration 10
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can concern only the decision contained in a judgment and not to the grounds therefor. It is, however, accepted that such an application may additionally concern the grounds if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision (see Judgments 2483, under 3, 3271, under 4, and 3564, under 1). [...]
However, an application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed (see, for example, Judgments 1306, under 2, 3014, under 3, or the aforementioned Judgment 3271, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306, 2483, 3014, 3271, 3271, 3564
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3845
Keywords:
application filed by the organisation; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint dismissed;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
