2022-Ģ��ƵAT-1190

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. Ģ��ƵAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application. Ģ��ƵAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, Ģ��ƵAT 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. Ģ��ƵAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it had no impact on the outcome of the case or the reasoning in it, and as such it did not warrant a correction or revision of judgment. Ģ��ƵAT also dismissed Ms. Reilly's request to include three additional paragraphs which she believed would give a fuller reflection of her submissions on grounds that Article 11 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute does not contemplate the correction or revision of a judgment to include more elaborate legal arguments.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

By Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2020/097, the Ģ��ƵDT dismissed Ms. Reilly��s application which challenged ��the procedure by which her request for protection from retaliation was processed, the failure to protect her from retaliation and the failure to follow up on Ethics Office recommendations subsequent to her request for protection from retaliation��. Ms. Reilly filed an appeal and by Judgment No. 2021-Ģ��ƵAT-1079, Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Legal Principle(s)

A fact which is not decisive as it has no impact on the outcome of the case or the reasoning in it does not warrant a correction or revision of the Judgment. Article 11 of the Statute of the Ģ��ƵAT does not contemplate the correction or revision of a judgment to include more elaborate legal arguments.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application.

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

Emma Reilly

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement