¹ú²úAV

The Applicant filed a second application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-774 and an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-UNAT-827. Subsequently, the Applicant requested leave to withdraw these two applications. UNAT granted leave to withdraw the applications and directed the Registrar to close the cases.

UNAT considered Mr Newland’s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-UNAT-820. UNAT held that, given that Mr Newland had already been paid Special Post Allowance, Hazard pay, and outstanding interest, the only questions requiring determination were whether he was entitled to payment of Rest and Recuperation (R&R), free tickets, and the relocation grant. UNAT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. UNAT held that Mr Newland’s claim that he was entitled to the payment of R&R was unsustainable, as it was not an accruable benefit or entitlement. UNAT...

Ms Rockcliffe filed an application for execution of UNAT judgment No. 2017-UNAT-807. UNAT held that the crux of the matter for determination was whether Ms Rockcliffe’s appointment to and her removal from, the Budget Working Group (BWG) in 2018 fell within the scope of UNAT’s order in the judgment. UNAT held that, although UNAT had not explicitly addressed the issue of conflict of interest in its judgment, it impliedly rejected it by means of applying the law in force at the time. UNAT held that it was egregious that UNJSPF re-submitted that the previous decision not to give Ms Rockcliffe...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. UNAT considered Ms Bezziccheri’s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and UNAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of UNAT can be revised, UNAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to UNAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, UNAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...

The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-UNAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) of UNHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager’s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to UNAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by UNAT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli’s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required UNAT to revise its judgment. UNAT held that neither the remand order of UNAT nor the need to have the Appellant’s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the...

UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-UNAT-873 by Ms Belkhabbaz, requesting that UNAT should order specific performance remedies against the individual against whom she had pursued her complaint. UNAT held that, under Section 5. 18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) had the discretion to decide whether or not to institute disciplinary measures, managerial actions, or administrative actions. UNAT held that the managerial action upon which the ASG/OHRM decided complied with UNAT’s direction in...

UNAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-936 by Mr Diallo. UNAT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and to him. UNAT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an application for interpretation and another for execution of judgment filed by the staff member. Regarding the application for interpretation of judgment, UNAT held that the judgment was clear in its meaning and written in plain and unambiguous language, which left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant, requiring no interpretation. Regarding the application for execution of judgment, UNAT held that there was no need to order execution, namely the Appellant’s reinstatement, since the judgment had already been fully executed by means of compensation, rather than rescission...

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.