UNDT/2022/010-Corr.1

UNDT/2022/010-Corr.1, Mukhopadhyay

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the Respondent complied with the judgment and took steps to execute the judgment accordingly. The Applicant failed to show that the judgment remains unexecuted. The Tribunal held that the express notice in the form of the memorandum from the Respondent advising the Applicant of his reinstatement from date of separation in compliance with the judgment was proof of execution.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application for execution of Judgment No. UNDT/2021/085 which had found in his favour.

Legal Principle(s)

Judgments of the Dispute Tribunal are binding upon the parties. Following expiry of the time limit set for lodging an appeal with the United Nations Appeals Tribunal(“UNAT”), a judgment becomes executable.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Mukhopadhyay

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :