Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 24

  • Article 1.2
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 13
  • Article 15
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18bis
  • Article 18bis.1
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 20
  • Article 20.2
  • Article 22
  • Article 23
  • Article 24
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 27
  • Article 29
  • Article 29(a)
  • Article 29(b)
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 11 - 20 of 45
    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1275, Hussam Abd AlRhman Al Dirawi

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1191, Abdalla Abdalla

    Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment which would...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1255, Boubacar Dieng

    The Secretary-General sought interpretation, revision, and execution of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1118, on grounds that he was unable to effectuate the compensation awarded in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment because Mr. Dieng refused to provide his banking details. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Judgment was clear, written in plain and unambiguous language, and it left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant. Thus, there was no need for clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Secretary-General had failed to argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1224, Howard Andrew Giles

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles¡¯ were unknown to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-102, Muthuswami et al.

    The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-034. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-317, El Khatib

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr El Khatib¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-142. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-393, Applicant

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Applicant¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-209. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant¡¯s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-392, Maghari

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Maghari¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-039. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.