����AV

Mr. Lucchini and the Secretary-General disagreed on whether UNAT confirmed the UNDT’s award of compensation for moral damages, in addition to increasing the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 months to 24 months, or ordered payment of the increased amount of compensation in lieu (of two years’ net base salary) but did not include the original award of compensation for moral harm that had been ordered by the UNDT.  Mr. Lucchini filed an application for interpretation seeking confirmation of his view that UNAT’s ruling increased the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 to 24 months’ net...

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 staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and UNAT were unaware of various UNRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. UNAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, UNAT also reasoned prior UNRWA DT judgments do not...

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. UNAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision.  UNAT dismissed the application. UNAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, UNAT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. UNAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

UNAT considered an appeal against Order No. UNDT/NBI/O/2010/023 by the Secretary-General. Applying the principle that a party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds, UNAT held that the Order had no practical effect following the withdrawal of the request for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was moot as it was academic and sought an opinion regarding the issues raised in the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

In Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050, UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant’s appeal before the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050/Corr.1, UNAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that the appeal was...

UNAT considered an application for “reconsideration” of Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-029bis. UNAT noted that its judgments are final and not subject to appeal except under Article 11 of its Statute, relating to the procedures for revision and correction of material errors and that no appeal against res judicata is admissible. UNAT held that the application was an appeal against res judicata and, as such, was inadmissible. Noting that Ms. El-Khatib’s appeal was dismissed as non-receivable and without merit, UNAT held that the application for “reconsideration” constituted an abuse of the appeals...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-026bis. UNAT held that the language of the judgment was clear in its meaning and required no interpretation. UNAT denied the application.

UNAT stated that an Application for Interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to have UNAT re-examine its decision, even though its judgments are final and without appeal, or to have it comment on its decision. UNAT held that the applications made under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 30 of the appeal, with the purpose of either calling into question the decision or having UNAT issue comments on the decision, were not receivable. UNAT held that the use of the word “annul” would not lead to confusion in the mind of a party in good faith because the language of...