Judgment-related matters | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-352, Cohen

28 Jun 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-131 by Ms Cohen. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute or Article 24 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Rules of Procedure. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about 罌厭弝ⅰAT reducing the compensation awarded. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the application for revision.

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-297, Likuyani

28 Mar 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that neither Article 11 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the application before 罌厭弝ⅰDT was not receivable because 罌厭弝ⅰDT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, while it confirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s conclusion, it found that 罌厭弝ⅰDT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of 罌厭弝ⅰAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal.

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-391, Elasoud

17 Oct 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered Mr Elasoud＊s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-173. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and 罌厭弝ⅰAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of 罌厭弝ⅰAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the application for revision.

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-351, Ghahremani

28 Jun 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered Mr Gharemani＊s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-171. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the request was time-barred...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-320, Masri

28 Mar 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-罌厭弝ⅰAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the application for...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-318, Frechon

28 Mar 2013

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of 罌厭弝ⅰAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years＊ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by 罌厭弝ⅰAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of 罌厭弝ⅰAT＊s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-323, Sims

8 Jul 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-154. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither 罌厭弝ⅰDT nor 罌厭弝ⅰAT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims＊ case. 罌厭弝ⅰAT denied the application.

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-322, Shkurtaj

8 Jul 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an application for interpretation by Mr Shkurtaj on the issue of interest. 罌厭弝ⅰAT referred to Warren (judgment No. 2010-罌厭弝ⅰAT-059) and Mmata (judgment No. 2010-罌厭弝ⅰAT-092) for the holding that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement became due. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the interest payable was at the US Prime Rate and that an extra five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate if the judgment was not executed within 60 days of its issuance. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the date from which interest on the compensation was to be paid at the US Prime Rate was...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-319, Laeijendecker

8 Jul 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-158. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Mr Laeijendecker＊s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

2013-罌厭弝ⅰAT-316, Basenko

8 Jul 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered Ms Basenko＊s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-139. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the reference made by 罌厭弝ⅰAT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 罌厭弝ⅰAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the application was not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the application.