����AV

UNAT considered Ms Beaudry’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-129. UNAT held that Ms Beaudry’s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the UNAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. UNAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. UNAT dismissed the application.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-015 by Ms. Macharia. UNAT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. UNAT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the UNDT Judge in her decision. UNAT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...

UNAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-014 by Mr Luvai. UNAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before UNDT was a Facebook “friend” of Judge Boolell, the then UNDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. UNAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. UNAT denied the application.

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-UNAT-034. UNAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT noted that UNDT correctly stated that the former UN Administrative Tribunal considered and rejected all of the Appellant’s other pleas and that for this reason, the matter of interest was res judicata. UNAT also noted that UNDT ordered the Secretary-General to make a payment of USD 25,000 as compensation for the excessive and inordinate delays and the emotional harm and to arrange for a Medical Board to consider outstanding invoices. UNAT found that, as the Secretary-General did not appeal, he had therefore accepted the UNDT’s decision and financial award. UNAT held that UNDT’s decision...

UNAT considered Mr Al-Mulla’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-226. UNAT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-084 filed by the estate of Mr Sanwidi. UNAT held that the estate of Mr Sandwidi did not present new evidence but merely expressed disagreement with the judgment. UNAT denied the application for revision.

UNAT considered Mr El Khatib’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-142. UNAT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. UNAT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. UNAT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered the Applicant’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-209. UNAT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant’s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. UNAT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

UNAT considered Mr Maghari’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-039. UNAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to UNAT and to the party applying for revision. UNAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the UNAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.