ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By session > 134th Session

Judgment No. 4568


The application for interpretation is dismissed.


The complainant has filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4440.

Judgment keywords


application for interpretation; summary procedure; complaint dismissed

Considerations 3-4


According to the Tribunal’s case law, and as was recalled in Judgment 4567, also delivered in public today, an application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that the judgment cannot be executed (see, for example, Judgments 3014, consideration 3, 3822, consideration 5, 3984, consideration 10, and 4409, consideration 6). Moreover, such an application can ordinarily concern only the decision in a judgment, and not the grounds thereof. Indeed, it can concern the grounds of the judgment as well only 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, and also aforementioned Judgments 3822, consideration 5, 3984, consideration 10, and 4409, consideration 6). The Tribunal notes that these requirements are actually set out at the beginning of the form used to file an application for interpretation.

The complainant’s arguments concerning Judgment 4440 focus entirely on its grounds, whereas the decision in that judgment – stating that “[t]he application for review is dismissed” – makes no reference to them. These arguments are therefore irrelevant under the case law recalled above. Moreover, the meaning of the decision in Judgment 4440, worded as indicated above, is not at all ambiguous or uncertain and therefore does not require interpretation by the Tribunal.


ILOAT Judgment(s): 2483, 3014, 3271, 3564, 3822, 3984, 4409, 4440, 4567


application for interpretation

Last updated: 18.01.2023 ^ top