The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri¡¯s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant¡¯s reliance on Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision had no merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted furthermore that the applicant¡¯s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the prior proceedings.
In addition, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted in...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specified that the sole issue was whether the applicant, a former staff member, had presented a new and decisive fact that was unknown to him and the Appeals Tribunal when the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was decided, and that this fact would have materially impacted the outcome of that Judgment.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed the documents submitted by the former staff member and concluded that they were all known to him prior to the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The former staff member essentially repeated or added to the same arguments he made in his original appeal, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the staff member¡¯s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.
Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted...
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...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s prior conclusions. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.
However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the staff member¡¯s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. As a result, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...
