2017-Ģ��ƵAT-808

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-Ģ��ƵAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, Ģ��ƵAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the Ģ��ƵAT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous Ģ��ƵAT judgment: The Applicant contested an Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) recommendation for her compensation claim relating to an injury. Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application in its entirety and found that it had no jurisdiction to examine the decision of the Secretary-General based on the recommendation of the ABCC, which was based on medical advice. In judgment No. 2017-Ģ��ƵAT-737 Ģ��ƵAT held that: Ģ��ƵDT correctly held itself not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence adduced by the ABCC; Ģ��ƵDT did not err in concluding that the ABCC��s recommendation had no connection with the attempted recovery of monies allegedly paid to her by the United Nations Federal Credit Union by mistake; and Ģ��ƵDT was correct in finding the proper way for the Appellant to request reconsideration of the medical findings was for her to request, pursuant to Article 17 of Appendix D, that her matter be re-examined by a group of medical experts, which she had failed to do. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Legal Principle(s)

A revision of a judgment is a review procedure which is corrective in nature and not an opportunity for an applicant to reargue his or her case.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Likukela

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement