L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies
Plan du site | Contact English
> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par mots-clés du thésaurus > avis

Judgment No. 4292


The application for interpretation is dismissed.


The FAO has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4065.

Judgment keywords


application for interpretation; complaint dismissed

Considerations 6-8


In its application for interpretation, the FAO states that while it notes that the five points of the decision in Judgment 4065 are expressed in clear terms, it became apparent from the exchanges of correspondence between the parties (referred to in the foregoing considerations) that they have differing views regarding what the decision requires them to do. This, it states, is because “there appears to be some ambiguity as to what actions are required as a consequence of Point 1 [of the Decision], having regard to Consideration 8 of the Judgment”, on which it requests the Tribunal’s guidance.
The FAO is entitled to apply for the interpretation of consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 as it has done in this instance as, according to the Tribunal’s case law, as stated, for example in Judgment 3984, consideration 10, although ordinarily an application for interpretation can concern only the decision contained in a judgment, it may additionally concern the grounds if the decision refers to them explicitly so that they are indirectly incorporated in the decision. In this instance, point 2 of the decision in Judgment 4065 incorporated consideration 8 of Judgment 4065. The critical question is whether the application is receivable. As the case law further states, in the said consideration 10 of Judgment 3984, such an application is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed.
The application for interpretation is irreceivable. Consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 is clear and unambiguous. [...] It is not within the Tribunal’s purview to provide an advisory opinion or guidance concerning the steps that are to follow the discussion or what should happen if events unfold in a certain way. The Tribunal reiterates that both the FAO and the complainant must approach the implementation of its order in point 2 and the analysis contained in consideration 8 of Judgment 4065 in a rational, sensible and balanced way, and, as a paramount consideration, do so lawfully (see Judgment 3989, consideration 5).


Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3984, 3989, 4065


application for interpretation; competence of tribunal; advisory opinion

Dernière mise à jour: 14.10.2020 ^ haut