����AV

The UNAT specified that the sole issue was whether the applicant, a former staff member, had presented a new and decisive fact that was unknown to him and the Appeals Tribunal when the prior UNAT Judgment was decided, and that this fact would have materially impacted the outcome of that Judgment.

The UNAT reviewed the documents submitted by the former staff member and concluded that they were all known to him prior to the issuance of the UNAT Judgment.  The former staff member essentially repeated or added to the same arguments he made in his original appeal, and the UNAT had already...

The UNAT held that the staff member’s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute.  It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the UNAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable.  The UNAT further held that the staff member’s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT. 

The UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT noted...

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 held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment. The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The UNAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the UNAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...

The UNAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the UNAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the UNAT’s prior conclusions.  In particular, the UNAT found that the staff member’s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.  

However, the UNAT granted the staff member’s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

The UNAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. The UNAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT and the UNDT. As a result, the UNAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the UNAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the UNAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...

The UNAT, citing the principle of res judicata, noted that the authority of a final judgment could not be so readily set aside. The UNAT held that the limited grounds and the gravest of reasons required for setting aside a final judgment by an appellate court are not met in this case.

The UNAT found that, as the staff member also acknowledges, the current request fell outside of the permissible grounds for revision, correction, or interpretation.

The UNAT decided that there were no grounds for it to review this matter in any way, dismissed the staff member's application and affirmed the...

The decisive fact relied on by the Secretary-General to justify a revision of the UNAT judgment  is said to be that Mr. Russo-Got inserted false information in his candidature regarding his alleged experience with NATO. The Secretary-General submits that he first became aware of this fact formally when it was made known to UNOPS after the issuance of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT held that the facts advanced by the Secretary-General, namely the allegedly false information Mr. Russo-Got had inserted in his candidature, could not be decisive of the Secretary-General’s case and enable him to now...

The UNAT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the UNDT. The UNAT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

The UNAT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous UNAT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

The UNAT was of the view that the staff member’s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the UNAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the UNJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a “stable union” with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

UNAT observed that Ms. Larriera’s application for revision was untimely. In addition, UNAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...