¹ú²úAV

The Secretary-General sought interpretation, revision, and execution of Judgment No. 2021-UNAT-1118, on grounds that he was unable to effectuate the compensation awarded in the UNDT Judgment because Mr. Dieng refused to provide his banking details.  UNAT held that the Judgment was clear, written in plain and unambiguous language, and it left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant. Thus, there was no need for clarification. UNAT further found that the Secretary-General had failed to argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment...

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-UNAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, UNAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles’ were unknown to the UNAT 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. UNAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-UNAT-034. UNAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered Mr Al-Mulla’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-226. UNAT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered Mr El Khatib’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-142. UNAT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. UNAT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. UNAT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered the Applicant’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-209. UNAT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant’s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. UNAT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

UNAT considered Mr Maghari’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-039. UNAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to UNAT and to the party applying for revision. UNAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the UNAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment. UNAT held that the alleged error in the factual findings of UNDT did not constitute circumstances that warranted revision, because none of them would result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by UNAT in vacating the UNDT judgment and affirming Mr Massah’s separation from service for serious misconduct. UNAT held that the application was inadmissible since its goal was to litigate the case de novo as a result of counsel not agreeing with the final judgment, an option which was not provided to the parties by the applicable law...

UNAT considered Mr Obdeijn’s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-201. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn’s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn’s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on UNAT’s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the UNAT Statute from a rule based on...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-131 by Ms Cohen. UNAT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute or Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about UNAT reducing the compensation awarded. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.