�山����

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 rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the UNDT RoP. UNAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to UNAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to UNAT and the moving party. UNAT...

The Applicant filed an application, ostensibly under art. 12.2 of its Statute (regarding corrections), in relation to Di Giacomo UNDT/2011/168, by which the UNDT dismissed his case as falling outside its jurisdiction. With regard to the present application, the UNDT found that the Applicant, in fact, sought revision of Di Giacomo under art. 12.1 of the Statute, as well as correction under art. 12.2 of the Statute. The UNDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the present application as Di Giacomo was under appeal before the UNAT, which was therefore seized of the matter.

A decisive or material fact as per art. 29 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure is one that was not known at the time the judgment was given. The said fact must be of such significant weight that its consideration in the case should lead to a revision of the judgment. The Dispute Tribunal has power to revise the judgments of the former �山����Administrative Tribunal, being its successor and subject to compliance with the provisions of art. 29 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The issue of power to suspend a staff member during the disciplinary process is a matter of law and not of fact.

In this case, the Applicant filed an application for revision of the judgment out of time. A decisive or material fact is one that was not known at the time the judgment was given. That fact must be of significant weight such that its application to the case should lead to a revision of the judgment.The Applicant was investigated and later summarily dismissed by UNHCR on allegations of corruption in refugee processing in the Nairobi office of UNHCR. The Applicant was also arrested by the Kenyan Police and charged in a Kenyan Court with various criminal offences, however, the Applicant was...

The UNDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. UNDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The UNDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that there are two stages in the procedure for the interpretation of a judgment. First, receivability must be determined and secondly if it is receivable whether it should be interpreted. Receivability: The Tribunal considered whether the filing of an appeal should be taken to mean that it is under consideration and therefore debar an applicant from an interpretation. The Tribunal held that the mere filing of an appeal against a judgment by one party to a case constitutes no legal impediment to the other party filing for an interpretation because the filing of an appeal is...

The Tribunal considered that given the Respondent’s appeal filed on 6 April 2015 against Judgment No. UNDT/2015/012, the judgment is not executable at this stage, pursuant to art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.

Receivability - The Application was found to be manifestly inadmissible. The Dispute Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to revise a judgment after the Appeals Tribunal has ruled on the same matter. The request filed by the Applicant did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised way to attempt to re-open the case. Abuse of Process - Article 10.6 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal stipulates that where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it, costs may be awarded against the offending party. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had...

The Tribunal held that the application for revision was manifestly inadimissable because the Applicant did not bring to the attention of the Tribunal the existence of any new decisive fact which was unknown to the Tribunal or to himself at the time Judgment No. UNDT/2016/059 was rendered. The issue of lack of investigation alleged by the Applicant was properly considered in Judgment No. UNDT/2016/059.