Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Fedorchenko¡¯s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the motion for execution of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-359. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had been provided with information from the Secretary-General that all six members of Dalgaard et al. had either resigned, retired or transferred from ICTY prior to the issuance of the impugned decision. In light of this information, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of them could rightfully claim that they were entitled to moral damages as a result of their rights being violated by the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that the course of action taken by the Secretary-General, in deciding that Dalgaard et al. were...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-297. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

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 a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT strike certain paragraphs from it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-221. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Simmons¡¯ contentions were not sustained. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for execution.

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.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Karseboom¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the moving party. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...