Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT strike certain paragraphs from it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-363. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both applications.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Onifade¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-668. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Onifade had failed to show that the first MOP form was unknown to him at the time the judgment was rendered and he had presented no decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the criteria established under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application had no merit and dismissed it...
As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined the Appellants¡¯ request for an oral hearing based on the length and complexity of the background of the appeal and that it was not persuaded that it was in the interests of justice to hold one. On the Appellants¡¯ argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had erred previously in establishing the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that they were effectively requesting a revision of two previous Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgments and held that they were time-barred from doing so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, as previously...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-936 by Mr Diallo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.
The staff member submits that the ¡°decisive fact¡± which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a ¡°decisive fact¡± that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...
