Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the staff member¡¯s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the terms of the impugned Judgment were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable, and consequently, the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ambiguity concerning the correctness of the grounds for and the nature of the disciplinary measure taken by the Administration against the former staff member.

Similarly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasoning regarding the referral of the case to the High Commissioner for possible action to enforce accountability was clear and unambiguous. However, even if the...

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 held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member 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. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s prior conclusions. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the staff member¡¯s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. As a result, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...

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, citing the principle of res judicata, noted that the authority of a final judgment could not be so readily set aside. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the limited grounds and the gravest of reasons required for setting aside a final judgment by an appellate court are not met in this case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, as the staff member also acknowledges, the current request fell outside of the permissible grounds for revision, correction, or interpretation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided that there were no grounds for it to review this matter in any way, dismissed the staff member's application and affirmed the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that several months after the Secretary-General had been notified of the Judgment, the only action taken was that some responses had been elicited from four staff members alleged in the complaint to have engaged in misconduct and that ¡°these responses alongside the 22 pages and 18 annexes¡± to the complaint were under review.

Noting the justification of the Secretary-General for the inaction that in the instant matter, no specific time had been set for execution, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had not acted as promptly as per the obligations imposed on it, "within a...

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...