����AV

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 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 revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former UN Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. UNAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former UN Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. UNAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the former UN Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

UNAT affirmed the UNDT order denying revision. UNAT held that a change in law is not a “fact” contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by UNAT is an issue of law, not of fact.

UNAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098. UNAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by UNAT for vacating the UNDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. UNAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

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.