|
|
 |
|
|
Application for interpretation (6,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Application for interpretation
Total judgments found: 63
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 5173
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the review of Judgment 4898.
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Under Article 6, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Rules, which, as indicated earlier, is based on the Tribunal’s case law, an application for interpretation can only concern the decision contained in a judgment, and not the grounds thereof, unless the decision itself refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in it (see, for example, Judgments 4409, consideration 6, 3822, consideration 5, and 3564, consideration 1).[…]
Moreover, according to the Tribunal’s consistent 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 4568, consideration 3, 4409, consideration 6, and 3822, consideration 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3564, 3822, 4409, 4568
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Judgment 5117
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: ITU seeks the Tribunal’s clarification on the issue of material damages payable in accordance with consideration 53 of Judgment 4832.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
“In Judgment 4907, consideration 4, the Tribunal recalled the principles governing an application for interpretation:
“[A]n 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, under Article 6, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Rules, 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 aforementioned Judgments 4409, consideration 6, 3984, consideration 10, 3822, consideration 5, and also Judgments 3564, consideration 1, 3271, consideration 4, and 2483, consideration 3). The Tribunal notes that these requirements are set out at the beginning of the form used to file an application for interpretation.”
In Judgment 4913, consideration 5, the Tribunal further emphasized that, ordinarily, it is the words, and only the words, of the orders in the decision that are the subject of interpretation if they are uncertain or ambiguous. Of course, as relevantly recalled in Judgment 4409, considerations 5 and 12, it is beyond contention that the Tribunal is, by definition, the only body capable of interpreting its own judgments, should that be necessary, and that a clarification of the meaning of a judgment cannot lead to an amendment of the latter or an increase in the amount of the awards made.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4409, 4907, 4913
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
“In Judgment 4092, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following:
“As the Tribunal has stated on many occasions in its case law, when a reinstatement order is applied retroactively to the date when the official’s employment was unlawfully terminated, this implies that the official is considered as having remained in service after that date under the same conditions as before and is therefore entitled to the salary and other financial benefits that he would have received if this had actually been the case (see, for example, Judgments 1384, consideration 18(a), 1447, consideration 17, 2261, consideration 16, 2468, consideration 19, and 3723, consideration 8). The reinstatement ‘with all legal consequences that this entails’ referred to in [order] 2 of the decision in Judgment 3871 can therefore only be construed as having such effects.”
[…] In the context of the words used by the Tribunal in […] Judgment 4832, the obligation to restore the status quo ante is limited to the payment of benefits and entitlements that the official receives from ITU and it does not include privileges and immunities bestowed by national authorities under headquarters or host agreements for the benefit of the organization and the independence of its officials.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871, 4092, 4832
Keywords:
application for interpretation; host state; reinstatement;
Judgment 5095
140th Session, 2025
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed applications for review of Judgments 4906 and 4907, as well as an application for interpretation of Judgment 4907.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Judgment 4913
139th Session, 2025
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4540.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4907
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for interpretation of Judgments 4568, 4569 and 4584.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; summary procedure;
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s settled case law – which, contrary to what the complainant submits in his application for interpretation of Judgment 4568, was not reversed in Judgment 3271, to which he refers – and as was recalled in Judgment 4568, 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, under Article 6, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Rules, 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 aforementioned Judgments 4409, consideration 6, 3984, consideration 10, 3822, consideration 5, and also Judgments 3564, consideration 1, 3271, consideration 4, and 2483, consideration 3). The Tribunal notes that these requirements are set out at the beginning of the form used to file an application for interpretation.
In this case, the decisions in Judgments 4568, 4569 and 4584 are respectively worded as follows: “[t]he application for interpretation is dismissed”, “[t]he application for review is dismissed” and “[t]he complaint is dismissed”. Contrary to the complainant’s submissions, their meaning is not at all ambiguous or uncertain and therefore does not require interpretation by the Tribunal. The complainant’s arguments in support of his applications, which are in reality directed against the grounds of these judgments, are irrelevant and must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2483, 3014, 3271, 3271, 3564, 3822, 3984, 4409, 4568, 4569, 4584
Keywords:
application for interpretation;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The three [...] applications for interpretation concern related cases and rest on similar arguments. Accordingly, they will be joined to form the subject of a single judgment.
Keywords:
application for interpretation; joinder;
Judgment 4876
138th Session, 2024
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: UNWTO has applied for the interpretation of Judgment 4576.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant seeks an order for costs in the sum of 1,500 euros to which he is entitled in the circumstances of this case given that he has been put to the trouble and expenses of, legitimately, answering the Organization’s pleas in this application to protect her interests.
Keywords:
application for interpretation; costs;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed; costs;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Ordinarily it is the words, and only the words, of the orders in the decision that are the subject of interpretation if they are uncertain or ambiguous. However, in circumstances where the orders themselves refer to and thereby incorporate statements made in the reasons (typically by reference to a specified consideration or considerations) then the relevant parts of the reasons are treated as incorporated, by reference, into the orders.
Keywords:
application for interpretation; interpretation;
Judgment 4874
138th Session, 2024
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: UNWTO has applied for the interpretation of Judgment 4453.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Ordinarily it is the words, and only the words, of the orders in the decision that are the subject of interpretation if they are uncertain or ambiguous. However, in circumstances where the orders themselves refer to and thereby incorporate statements made in the reasons (typically by reference to a specified consideration or considerations) then the relevant parts of the reasons are treated as incorporated, by reference, into the orders.
Keywords:
application for interpretation; interpretation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant seeks an order for costs in the sum of 1,500 euros to which he is entitled in the circumstances of this case given that he has been put to the trouble and expenses of, legitimately, answering the Organization’s pleas in this application to protect her interests.
Keywords:
application for interpretation; costs;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed; costs;
Judgment 4871
138th Session, 2024
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: UNWTO has applied for the interpretation of Judgment 4577.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed; costs;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant seeks an order for costs in the sum of 1,500 euros to which she is entitled in the circumstances of this case given that she has been put to the trouble and expenses of, legitimately, answering the Organization’s pleas in this application to protect her interests.
Keywords:
application for interpretation; costs;
Judgment 4869
138th Session, 2024
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: UNWTO has applied for the interpretation of Judgment 4456.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed; costs;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant seeks an order for costs in the sum of 1,500 euros to which she is entitled in the circumstances of this case given that she has been put to the trouble and expenses of, legitimately, answering the Organization’s pleas in this application to protect her interests.
Keywords:
application for interpretation; costs;
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.
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 keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed;
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;
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;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application filed by the organisation; application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
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 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.
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 keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
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.
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 keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
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.
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 keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
