Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT interpreted the application as a request for a correction of the previous Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case file of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal revealed that the President of that Tribunal had extended the deadline for filing the appeal but a copy of that decision had not been placed in the file submitted to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that it had rendered its judgment to reject the appeal, without being aware of the President's decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found, however, that the staff member's appeal was received by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for ¡°reconsideration¡± of Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-029bis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that its judgments are final and not subject to appeal except under Article 11 of its Statute, relating to the procedures for revision and correction of material errors and that no appeal against res judicata is admissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was an appeal against res judicata and, as such, was inadmissible. Noting that Ms. El-Khatib¡¯s appeal was dismissed as non-receivable and without merit, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for ¡°reconsideration¡± constituted an abuse of the appeals...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...