UNDT/2023/004

UNDT/2023/004, Chawla

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Referring to its previous judgment in the Applicant’s non-selection case, the Tribunal was of the view that in the present application for interpretation, he essentially disagreed with the Tribunal’s findings on the propriety of the impugned selection exercise. Specifically, the Applicant takes issue with the Tribunal’s finding in paragraph 60(b) that he “failed to substantiate that the chosen candidate was not qualified either academically or by way of relevant managerial and supply chain experience”.

The Tribunal held that paragraph 60(b) of the judgment was both comprehensible and clear. The fact that the Applicant disagrees with it does not give cause for it to be further interpreted. The correct avenue for such a disagreement is the appellate process.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for interpretation.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to neither select nor roster him for the position of Chief of Service, Supply Chain Management, D-1, United Nations Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS).

By Judgment No. UNDT/2022/130, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Applicant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment No. UNDT/2022/130, paragraph 60(b), in which the Tribunal had examined the surrounding circumstances he relied on to substantiate his allegations of bias in the selection exercise.

Legal Principle(s)

A judgment can be subject to interpretation if it is ambiguous in its findings or conclusions, so that clarification of the judgment is necessary. Interpretation will not serve the party who disagrees with the judgment of the tribunal at first instance and seeks to reargue his case.

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

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

Chawla

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :

Date of Judgement