Judgment No. 3984
The application for review and interpretation is dismissed.
The ACP Group has filed an application for review and interpretation of Judgment 3845.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3845
application for interpretation; application for review; application filed by the organisation
As the Tribunal has consistently held, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated, for example, in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the only admissible grounds for review are failure to take account of material facts, a material error involving no exercise of judgement, an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the author of the application was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).
The amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal introduced in 2016 in order to recognise the parties’ right to file an application for review has no bearing on the grounds on which such applications may be admitted according to the case law cited above. [...]
However, in order to determine these questions of competence and receivability, the Tribunal made legal assessments which were duly explained in the reasoning of the judgment and which may not be challenged in an application for review. Thus, despite the misleading way in which they are presented, the pleas raised by the ACP Group cannot be construed as relating to material errors, but solely as an attempt to challenge the Tribunal’s informed rulings on these issues.
application for review; admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review
[T]here is no contradiction between setting aside an unlawful decision and compensating the injury caused by it.
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).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306, 2483, 3014, 3271, 3271, 3564
application for interpretation
[T]he ACP Group has no right whatsoever to claim, as it apparently seeks to do in its application, that in the event of that professional earnings amount to more than the salary and benefits due to the complainant, he should pay the organisation the difference, since such a claim plainly has no basis in law.