Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Bezziccheri¡¯s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT can be revised, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...
The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager¡¯s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli¡¯s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to revise its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that neither the remand order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nor the need to have the Appellant¡¯s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that, in actuality, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT erred in making an award of interest, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT are final and without appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this attempt to...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-914 from Mr Oglesby. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the party applying for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that it was within the combined powers of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1055. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application was dismissed.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision, because Mr. Sirhan did not present any decisive fact which could lead to a revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment.
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...
