Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed the submission of the Secretary-General that Ms. Lekoetje had already repaid the amounts due to the Organization when she separated from service. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT acknowledged that Ms. Lekoetje agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s position, and confirmed that USD 20,987.91 had already been deducted from her final entitlements.

Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted this position, and interpreted Judgment No. 2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1227 as requiring a payment by the Organization to Ms. Lekoetje of a sum equal to one year¡¯s net base salary, but without any further deductions.

The decisive fact relied on by the Secretary-General to justify a revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment is said to be that Mr. Russo-Got inserted false information in his candidature regarding his alleged experience with NATO. The Secretary-General submits that he first became aware of this fact formally when it was made known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts advanced by the Secretary-General, namely the allegedly false information Mr. Russo-Got had inserted in his candidature, could not be decisive of the Secretary-General¡¯s case and enable him to now...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. He argued that the Dispute Tribunal may only issue an Order for execution under art. 12.4 of its Statute where a judgment required a time limit for execution and such execution had not been carried out.

The Tribunal considered that while Judgment Applicant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/055 did not provide for its execution within a certain period of time, it was reasonable to infer that in the absence of an appeal, said judgment should have been executed within a reasonable time, after the expiry of the 60-day time limit to file an...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment (as affirmed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) had occurred in Mr. Ozturk¡¯s case. The Administration had complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and exercised its discretion in determining a new, revised amount to be deducted for child support from Mr. Ozturk's salary on the basis of national court orders.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ozturk appeared only to disagree with the ¡°refund calculation¡± by the Administration for prior overpayments. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that implementation by the Administration of a Tribunal¡¯s order constitutes in itself an...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the staff member¡¯s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a ¡°stable union¡± with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Ms. Larriera¡¯s application for revision was untimely. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant¡¯s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant. Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal. It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that by the Commissioner-General had been ordered to take a new decision with respect to the staff member¡¯s request in view of the increase in his managerial and budgetary duties and responsibilities.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Commissioner-General had not been specifically ordered to upgrade his post or to grant him a special allowance; the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had deemed it to be within the discretion of the Commissioner-General to decide whether or not he should be compensated.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the...

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...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.