2025-UNAT-1553

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT noted that the UNRWA DT, in its Judgment, had ordered the Commissioner-General to pay Ms. Smadi the difference between the salaries and associated entitlements between her Grade of HL6 and step and the Grade HL7 and step to which she was entitled from 1 August 2017.

The UNAT held that the language of the order was unequivocal, as were its terms. The UNAT found that it had been also clearly expressed in the UNRWA DT Judgment that the US Prime Rate should apply as of 30 May 2023. The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT Judgment, in turn, had been unambiguously affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Judgment No. 2024-UNAT-1415.

The UNAT concluded that there was no basis to contend that the terms of the UNRWA DT Judgment or the UNAT Judgment were not clear and held that there was no need to interpret the UNAT Judgment to clarify its meaning.

The UNAT dismissed the application for interpretation.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member of UNRWA contested a decision not to reclassify her post from Grade HL6 to Grade HL7.

In Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2023/016, the UNRWA DT rescinded the contested decision and ordered that the Commissioner-General was to pay Ms. Smadi the difference between the salaries and associated entitlements of the grade she held and the grade to which she was entitled. By Judgment No. 2024-UNAT-1415, the Appeals Tribunal affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment.

Ms. Smadi filed an application for interpretation of the UNAT Judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

An interpretation application must, under Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute, establish that the meaning or scope of the judgment as worded is equivocal or otherwise so unclear that the parties cannot reasonably agree on what it requires either or both to do to satisfy or implement the judgment.

Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubt about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. But if the judgment is comprehensible, whatever opinion the parties may have about it or its reasoning, an application for interpretation is not admissible.

An application for interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to contest a final judgment or to obtain comments on that judgment.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

The application for interpretation is dismissed.

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

Dua Smadi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement