Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Order No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/O/2010/023 by the Secretary-General. Applying the principle that a party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Order had no practical effect following the withdrawal of the request for suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was moot as it was academic and sought an opinion regarding the issues raised in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr.1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for ¡°reconsideration¡± of Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-029bis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that its judgments are final and not subject to appeal except under Article 11 of its Statute, relating to the procedures for revision and correction of material errors and that no appeal against res judicata is admissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was an appeal against res judicata and, as such, was inadmissible. Noting that Ms. El-Khatib¡¯s appeal was dismissed as non-receivable and without merit, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for ¡°reconsideration¡± constituted an abuse of the appeals...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-026bis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the language of the judgment was clear in its meaning and required no interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated that an Application for Interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT re-examine its decision, even though its judgments are final and without appeal, or to have it comment on its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applications made under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 30 of the appeal, with the purpose of either calling into question the decision or having Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT issue comments on the decision, were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the use of the word ¡°annul¡± would not lead to confusion in the mind of a party in good faith because the language of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referenced the Shanks jurisprudence (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-026bis) where it held that the authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there are only limited grounds as enumerated in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute for review of a final judgment and an allegation of an error in law is not one of them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application to set aside and remand the previous judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administration Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable.