Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Secretary-General¡¯s calculation of two years¡¯ net base salary was appropriate.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the deductions made for...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr. Salon¡¯s argument that the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute¡¯s provisions for an application for interpretation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was clear...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and the application was denied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and was denied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. Mr. Almasri¡¯s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri¡¯s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant¡¯s reliance on Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision had no merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted furthermore that the applicant¡¯s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the prior proceedings.

In addition, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specified that the sole issue was whether the applicant, a former staff member, had presented a new and decisive fact that was unknown to him and the Appeals Tribunal when the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was decided, and that this fact would have materially impacted the outcome of that Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed the documents submitted by the former staff member and concluded that they were all known to him prior to the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The former staff member essentially repeated or added to the same arguments he made in his original appeal, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...