Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles¡¯ were unknown to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were unaware of various Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also reasoned prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgments do not...

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for ¡°reconsideration¡± of Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-029bis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that its judgments are final and not subject to appeal except under Article 11 of its Statute, relating to the procedures for revision and correction of material errors and that no appeal against res judicata is admissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was an appeal against res judicata and, as such, was inadmissible. Noting that Ms. El-Khatib¡¯s appeal was dismissed as non-receivable and without merit, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for ¡°reconsideration¡± constituted an abuse of the appeals...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administration Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administration Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order denying revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a change in law is not a ¡°fact¡± contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is an issue of law, not of fact.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Beaudry¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-129. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Beaudry¡¯s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application.