Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly stated that the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal considered and rejected all of the Appellant¡¯s other pleas and that for this reason, the matter of interest was res judicata. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered the Secretary-General to make a payment of USD 25,000 as compensation for the excessive and inordinate delays and the emotional harm and to arrange for a Medical Board to consider outstanding invoices. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, as the Secretary-General did not appeal, he had therefore accepted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision and financial award. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Al-Mulla¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-226. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-084 filed by the estate of Mr Sanwidi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the estate of Mr Sandwidi did not present new evidence but merely expressed disagreement with the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr El Khatib¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-142. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Applicant¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-209. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant¡¯s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Maghari¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-039. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged error in the factual findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not constitute circumstances that warranted revision, because none of them would result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming Mr Massah¡¯s separation from service for serious misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was inadmissible since its goal was to litigate the case de novo as a result of counsel not agreeing with the final judgment, an option which was not provided to the parties by the applicable law...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application of the Secretary-General for interpretation of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-240. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and was therefore manifestly inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment clearly stated that the utilisation of foreign tax credits constituted a reimbursable payment method and the tax unit had calculated the relevant reimbursable amount at USD 15, 239. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s application and ordered the Secretary-General to pay Ms Johnson USD 15,239 with interest, stating that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-185. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its Case Management Order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for interpretation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Obdeijn¡¯s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-201. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute from a rule based on...