Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered Mr Paskolti’s application for revision of former Ãå±±½ûµØAdministrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. UNAT held that Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on UNAT to review a judgment of the former Ãå±±½ûµØAdministrative Tribunal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.

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 an application of the Secretary-General for interpretation of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-240. UNAT held that the application did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and was therefore manifestly inadmissible. UNAT held that the judgment clearly stated that the utilisation of foreign tax credits constituted a reimbursable payment method and the tax unit had calculated the relevant reimbursable amount at USD 15, 239. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s application and ordered the Secretary-General to pay Ms Johnson USD 15,239 with interest, stating that the...

UNAT considered Mr Obdeijn’s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-201. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn’s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn’s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on UNAT’s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the UNAT Statute from a rule based on...

UNAT held that neither Article 11 of the UNAT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the UNDT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former Ãå±±½ûµØAdministrative Tribunal. UNAT held that the application before UNDT was not receivable because UNDT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. UNAT held that, while it confirmed the UNDT’s conclusion, it found that UNDT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-UNAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). UNAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. UNAT held that the UNAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. UNAT held that the application for...

UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of UNAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years’ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. UNAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by UNAT. UNAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of UNAT’s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...

UNAT considered Mr Gakumba’s application for revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-387. UNAT held that it did not fulfil the statutory requirements and was seemingly disguised as an attempt to re-open the case. UNAT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to submit that the UNDP Conversion Policy issued in 2010 could not be argued by the staff member in 2012 before the UNDT, or in 2013 before UNAT. UNAT held that no valid reason had been provided about the untimely submission of the application for revision. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-UNAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko’s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, UNAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...

UNAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, UNAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant’s appeal due to lack of legal representation. UNAT agreed with the Secretary-General’s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. UNAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. UNAT held that UNDT...