Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-043 on the issue of to which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Registry Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded Ms Mezoui¡¯s case; two appeals from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT interfere with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assignment of venue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that venue was a matter for the trial court¡¯s discretion, with which it would not interfere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application for...

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 and dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order denying revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a change in law is not a ¡°fact¡± contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is an issue of law, not of fact.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years¡¯ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Beaudry¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-129. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Beaudry¡¯s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-015 by Ms. Macharia. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge in her decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-014 by Mr Luvai. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was a Facebook ¡°friend¡± of Judge Boolell, the then Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-034. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.