����AV

The Applicant argued that the decisive fact in support of his application for revision was the alleged perjury of the complainant during the hearing on the merits of Case No. UNDT/GVA/2011/047. The Tribunal found that the audio recording of the hearing did not, and could not, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time Judgment UNDT/2011/181 was rendered for it contained all the information and testimony heard by the respective Judge before adjudicating the matter, and his judgment was based on the testimony given by the complainant. The Tribunal...

The Tribunal considered that given the Respondent’s appeal filed on 6 April 2015 against Judgment No. UNDT/2015/012, the judgment is not executable at this stage, pursuant to art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Applicant requests revision of UNDT/2017/012 on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider his closing statement. The Tribunal concludes that there are no legal reasons for the Judgment to be revised. The Tribunal also notes that the reason invoked in the application for revision may be submitted as a ground of appeal, if any, before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal.

Granting an application for revision: As consistently held by the Appeals Tribunal, “the review procedure [of revision] is of a corrective nature and thus is not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case” (see Sanwidi 2013-UNAT-321, para. 8. Moreover, an application for revision of a judgment is only receivable if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established under art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute and art. 29 of its Rules of Procedure, namely (see James 2016-UNAT-680, para. 13): “… Accordingly, an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if...

The Tribunal cannot consider a hypothetical scenario concerning which there is no instant case or controversy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the request for interpretation noting that the decision was clear and unambiguous and considered the Applicant’s request to, in essence, be requesting the Tribunal to address a hypothetical future scenario.

Whilst the prescribed form refers to “judgments” and not “orders”, the Tribunal found that this is a matter of form and not substance. The Tribunal found that the suspension of action Order No. 276 (NY/2016) was dispositive of the case at the time, and it also found that the motion under review submitted by way of a motion for correction of a judgment on Form UNDT/F.8E rev. 1 of July 2011 was receivable. The Tribunal considered whether, since the Applicant was requesting para. 13 of Order 276 be modified to include a subsequent occurrence, a revision was warranted under art. 29 of the Dispute...

The Tribunal stressed that the Applicant, contrary to his assertion, was not awarded compensation for loss of earnings. He was awarded material damages for his loss of opportunity.; The Tribunal reviewed the paragraph sought to be interpreted and was of the view that the Judgment was comprehensible and clear. The expression “net base salary” was found to be clear and unambiguous and to refer to gross salary minus staff assessment. It does; not include a post adjustment component. The Tribunal also clearly did not provide for the taking into consideration of a possible step increment in the...

Considering that in the circumstances of the case it is in the interest of all parties that the present matter be disposed of as soon as possible, the Tribunal deemed appropriate to rule on the application for revision by summary judgment, in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, without waiting for the Applicant’s reply.; An application for revision is not possible when the judgment in question is subject to appeal; the appropriate avenue for a party to adduce new facts during this period is through appellate proceedings.; Since the judgment was not executable, the UNDT found not...

The Tribunal rejected the application noting that the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the Respondent has executed the Judgment No. UNDT/2016/185.