Judgment No. 4076
Decision
1. The UPU’s application for interpretation and review is dismissed.
2. The UPU shall pay the complainant 5 per cent interest in accordance with consideration 14 of the judgment.
3. The UPU shall pay the complainant 1,000 Swiss francs in moral damages.
4. The UPU shall also pay her 7,000 Swiss francs in costs.
5. All other claims and counterclaims are dismissed.
Summary
The UPU filed and application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3927 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; suspension of the execution of a judgment; application filed by the organisation
Consideration 7
Extract:
As the two applications concern the same judgment, the Tribunal finds it convenient to join them in order to render one judgment.
Keywords
joinder
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal finds the written submissions to be sufficient to reach a reasoned decision and therefore denies the complainant’s request for oral hearings.
Keywords
oral proceedings
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, ordinarily an application for interpretation can only concern the decision in a judgment and not the grounds therefor (see, for example, Judgment 3984, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). The application for interpretation is, on the face of the record, irreceivable as it does not put in issue the terms of the orders made in the decision in Judgment 3927.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3927, 3984
Keywords
application for interpretation; receivability of application
Consideration 9
Extract:
[I]t is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds therefor are failure to take account of material facts, a material error (in other words, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, which thus differs from misinterpretation of the facts), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant 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, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897
Keywords
application for review; res judicata
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he order contained in the decision of Judgment 3927 was clear and the application for review did not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7). The execution depended on the payment of an established amount of money and the UPU had to execute the judgment within one month from the date of its delivery (see Judgment 3152, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 3152, 3927
Keywords
application for review; judgment of the tribunal; execution of judgment; suspension of the execution of a judgment
Consideration 15
Extract:
The unnecessary delay in executing Judgment 3927 has caused the complainant moral injury, for which she is entitled to moral damages that the Tribunal sets in the amount of 1,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3927
Keywords
moral injury; execution of judgment; delay in payment
| 
