In re VAN DER PEET (No. 10)

(Application for review)

Judgment 802


Considering the application for review of Judgment 761 filed by Mr. Hendricus van der Peet on 22 September 1986, the reply of the European Patent Organisation (EPO) of 10 December, the applicant's rejoinder of 2 January 1987 and the Organisation's surrejoinder of 10 February 1987;

Considering Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal;

Having examined the written evidence;


l. This is an application by the complainant for interpretation of Judgment 76l, which the Tribunal delivered on l2 June l986 and in which it ordered the European Patent Organisation to pay the complainant 2,738 guilders and interest thereon.

2. The EPO has paid the complainant that amount and simple interest thereon. On 25 August l986 the complainant wrote to the Organisation saying that it should have paid him compound intrest. By a letter of 9 September the Remuneration Department granted his request and paid him compound interest - an additional 39.63 guilders - but without admission of liability to do so.

3. In the application, which he filed on 22 September l986, the complainant asks the Tribunal to (a) declare that Judgment 761 requires the payment of compound interest, (b) award him costs and (c) order that one day of "compassionate leave" be added to his l987 leave allowance.

The application is irreceivable.

4. First, an application for interpretation of a judgment is receivable only if the operative part gives rise to uncertainty or ambiguity about its meaning or import.

Judgment 76l is quite clear, suffers from no ambiguity and presents no difficulty of interpretation. It ordered payment of a sum of money "and interest thereon at 8 per cent from 8 January l984 until payment". That clearly means simple interest, and if the Tribunal had meant compound interest, which is out of the ordinary, it would have used words to that effect.

5. Secondly, the complainant was in any event paid compound interest, to which he was not entitled. So he has suffered no injury and his claim is devoid of substance.

6. His claim to costs therefore fails as well.

7. The claim to one day's leave is irreceivable because there is no decision that he challenged in any internal appeal.


For the above reasons,

The application is dismissed.

In witness of this judgment by Mr. Andr¿risel, President of the Tribunal, Mr. Jacques Ducoux, Vice-President, and Tun Mohamed Suffian, Judge, the aforementioned have signed hereunder, as have I, Allan Gardner, Registrar.

Delivered in public sitting in Geneva on 13 March 1987.

Jacques Ducoux
Mohamed Suffian
A.B. Gardner

Updated by PFR. Approved by CC. Last update: 7 July 2000.