Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing, noting that the Appellant was not entitled to call evidence on appeal that she should have presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly regarded itself as not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no error in its finding that the ABCC¡¯s recommendation had no connection with the attempted recovery of monies which was allegedly paid to the Appellant by the United Nations Federal Credit Union (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU) by mistake. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was quite correct in its opinion that the...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found no grounds for excusing the Applicant from his obligation to first request management evaluation before filing his application with the Dispute Tribunal.
The Applicant submitted that she has a legitimate expectation of renewal and that the decision not to renew her contract was motivated by extraneous considerations. The Respondent submitted that the decision was taken as a result of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIT¡¯s downsizing in view of its eventual closure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirement of urgency was satisfied. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness was also satisfied as the reason provided by the Respondent in support of the contested decision appeared to be unsupported by the facts and the documents in this case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found...
Following successful mediation, the Applicant filed a motion to withdraw her application, confirming that she was withdrawing it fully, finally and entirely, including on the merits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT stated in the judgment that, there no longer being any determination to make, the application was dismissed in its entirety without liberty to reinstate.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it does not have jurisdiction to review the medical opinion expressed by the Medical Services Division, as requested by the Applicant, and dismissed the application in its entirety. Procedure for challenging a decision taken pursuant to Appendix D: A claimant may either challenge a decision taken by the Secretary-General upon recommendation from the ABCC by seeking reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D or by appealing it before the Dispute Tribunal. However, the two avenues offer different prospects. Reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D: The reconsideration...
