����AV

The UNAT 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 UNAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.

The UNAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the UNAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the UNAT Judgment where the UNAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund. 

Finally, the...

UNAT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

UNAT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment.  UNAT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

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

UNAT considered Ms Roig’s application for correction and noted that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. UNAT noted that the correction procedure is not an opportunity for a party to reargue their case or to merely repeat arguments that did not previously succeed. UNAT dismissed the application for correction.

UNAT considered Mrs Sidell’s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, UNAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, UNAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. UNAT denied both Applications.

UNAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-UNAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko’s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...

UNAT considered an application for execution. UNAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221. UNAT held that Ms Simmons’ contentions were not sustained. UNAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). UNAT rejected the application for execution.

UNAT considered the staff member’s application for correction of judgment. The staff member claimed that there was a mistake in paragraph 2 of the former UNAT judgment, contending that it erroneously refers to the COS instead of the CMS. The staff member also contended that the reference to MINUSCA on page 4 is erroneous since the mission he was assigned to was MINUSMA. UNAT noted that paragraph 2 of the judgment merely quoted the facts “as found by the Dispute Tribunal”, with a footnote reference to the paragraphs quoted from the UNDT judgment. UNAT further noted that the Secretary-General...

UNAT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to UNAT. UNAT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. UNAT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the UN and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...

UNAT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-UNAT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that UNDT had made to its own judgment. UNAT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the UNDT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant’s application to UNDT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT granted the Appellant’s application and ordered the correction of the UNAT judgment.