Judgment No. 4409
The application for interpretation is dismissed.
The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4215.
application for interpretation; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed
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Secretary General to the Director-General of the International Labour Office (ILO) by a letter of 17 January 2018, has withdrawn its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.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this case, the Tribunal has delivered a judgment on a complaint against an international organisation which has since withdrawn from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it nevertheless remains competent to hear any applications for interpretation of that judgment.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.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1043, 4141, 4215
application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; competence of tribunal
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).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306, 2483, 3014, 3271, 3564, 3822, 3984
application for interpretation
The Tribunal [...] points out [...] that [...] the interest to which its awards are sometimes subject must be understood as simple interest and not – unless there is an express indication to that effect in the decision in the judgment concerned – as compound interest (see Judgments 802, consideration 4, 3013, consideration 3, and 4235, consideration 15).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 802, 3013, 4235
interest on damages
[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.
application for interpretation