����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...

The UNAT interpreted the application as a request for a correction of the previous UNAT judgment.

The UNAT noted that the case file of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal revealed that the President of that Tribunal had extended the deadline for filing the appeal but a copy of that decision had not been placed in the file submitted to the UNAT. The UNAT observed that it had rendered its judgment to reject the appeal, without being aware of the President's decision.

The UNAT found, however, that the staff member's appeal was received by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal...

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 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 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 granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, UNAT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.