Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were ¡°new facts¡± for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.
Finally, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Ms. Raschdorf¡¯s application for interpretation, finding that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was clear and comprehensive.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Ms. Raschdorf¡¯s three related motions.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ms. Raschdorf, a former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI staff member, contested three administration decisions: (i) the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment; (ii) the decision of the Division of Healthcare Management and Occupational Safety and Health (DHMOSH) not to recommend her for a disability pension to the United Nations Staff Pension Committee (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC); and (iii) the decision of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) to reject her claim for compensation on the ground that her claim was time-barred. In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/004, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed all three applications having found that the applications regarding the non-renewal decision and the ABCC decision were not receivable ratione materiae because she had failed to submit them for management evaluation, and the DHMOSH decision was legal, rational, and procedurally correct.
Ms. Raschdorf appealed.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found not receivable Ms. Raschdorf's application with respect to the non-renewal decision and the ABCC¡¯s decision given Ms. Raschdorf's failure to request management evaluation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that contrary to Ms. Raschdorf's contention, the non-renewal decision was not taken subsequent to advice from a technical body. As to the ABCC's decision on whether the claim was time-barred, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that decision was not based on a consideration of a medical evaluation but was concerned with the timeliness of the application and thus with an administrative aspect of the ABCC's work. The requirement for management evaluation therefore applied to both decisions. As to the decision not to recommned Ms. Raschdorf for a disability benefit to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal did not err in fact or law in finding that Ms. Raschdorf had not demonstrated that DHMOSH committed any procedural errors in arriving at the contested decision.
Ms. Raschdorf filed three applications, for correction, interpretation, and revision, respectively, as well as three related motions.
Legal Principle(s)
There must be an end to the litigation and the stability of the judicial process requires that final judgments by an appellate court be set aside only on limited grounds and for the gravest of reasons.
The authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside.
Any application which, in fact, seeks a review of a final judgment rendered by the Appeals Tribunal can, irrespective of its title, only succeed if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal. Such application is not an additional opportunity for a party to re-litigate arguments that failed at trial or on appeal.
Facts that occur after the issuance of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment are not ¡°new facts¡± for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute.
Jurisprudence issued by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT after the Judgment by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is an issue of law, not of fact.
Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubt about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. But if the judgment is comprehensible, whatever opinion the parties may have about it or its reasoning, an application for interpretation is not admissible.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
Ms. Raschdorf¡¯s applications for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1343 are dismissed.
Ms. Raschdorf¡¯s application for correction of Judgment No. 2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1343 is granted partially, in so far as ¡°ABCC¡± is to be replaced with ¡°Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡± at paragraph 44. The Registry is instructed to make the necessary correction and reissue the Judgment.