Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were ¡°new facts¡± for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.

Finally, the...

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...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decision or the reasons for it.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that there was also...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr.1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Roig¡¯s application for correction and noted that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the correction procedure is not an opportunity for a party to reargue their case or to merely repeat arguments that did not previously succeed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for correction.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mrs Sidell¡¯s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied both Applications.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

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.