Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 11

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 11 - 20 of 29
    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-106, Piskolti

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Paskolti¡¯s application for revision of former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to review a judgment of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-128, Macharia

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-015 by Ms. Macharia. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge in her decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-355, Johnson

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application of the Secretary-General for interpretation of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-240. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and was therefore manifestly inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment clearly stated that the utilisation of foreign tax credits constituted a reimbursable payment method and the tax unit had calculated the relevant reimbursable amount at USD 15, 239. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s application and ordered the Secretary-General to pay Ms Johnson USD 15,239 with interest, stating that the...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-353, Obdeijn

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Obdeijn¡¯s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-201. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute from a rule based on...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-297, Likuyani

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that neither Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion, it found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-320, Masri

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-318, Frechon

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years¡¯ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...

    2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-492, Gakumba

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Gakumba¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-387. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not fulfil the statutory requirements and was seemingly disguised as an attempt to re-open the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to submit that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Conversion Policy issued in 2010 could not be argued by the staff member in 2012 before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, or in 2013 before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no valid reason had been provided about the untimely submission of the application for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-567, Fedorchenko

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Fedorchenko¡¯s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-591, Gakumba

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...