����AV

UNAT considered Mr Elasoud’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-173. UNAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and UNAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. UNAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-UNAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). UNAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. UNAT held that the UNAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. UNAT held that the application for...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-158. UNAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. UNAT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, UNAT held that Mr Laeijendecker’s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

UNAT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, UNAT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a UNAT judgment. UNAT held that, even if the “cheating” in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi’s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...

UNAT considered Mr Gakumba’s application for revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-387. UNAT held that it did not fulfil the statutory requirements and was seemingly disguised as an attempt to re-open the case. UNAT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to submit that the UNDP Conversion Policy issued in 2010 could not be argued by the staff member in 2012 before the UNDT, or in 2013 before UNAT. UNAT held that no valid reason had been provided about the untimely submission of the application for revision. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, UNAT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and UNAT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, UNAT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-297. UNAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-UNAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that UNAT strike certain paragraphs from it. UNAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. UNAT held that his application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. UNAT dismissed both applications.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. UNAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the UNAT judgment.