Ãå±±½ûµØ

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.

The ends of justice are not served but its processes stultified by requiring that an Applicant who had obtained judgment in his/her favour should seek management evaluation for enforcement or execution of the said judgment. An Applicant who refused to accept a cheque made out to her/him in time in fulfilment of a judgment sum cannot turn around to seek payment of interest on the said judgment sum on the grounds of delay. Having found that the monies awarded to the Applicant have been duly paid, the Tribunal rejects the Application in its entirety.

UNDT noted that a party may apply for the revision of a judgment only when that judgment is executable, which was not the case with Judgment Odio-Benito UNDT/2011/019 given that the Applicant had appealed it before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. UNDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and rejected it.

Judge Meeran handled the case since Judge Kaman issued the judgment on the last day of her tenure with the Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the only conclusion, which could sensibly have been drawn from the fact that UNDT/2011/124 did not address the claim in explicit terms was that either Judge Kaman considered it implicitly covered in the findings or alternatively she overlooked it in her final conclusions on remedies. To the extent that it may have been an oversight, on the basis of a full examination of the record and the judgments, Judge Meeran ordered that Judge Kaman had...

A judgment must be uncertain or ambiguous to be open to interpretation by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that paragraph 19 of the judgment was an obiter observation by the Tribunal and did not have a bearing on the reasoning or outcome of the final judgment. The Tribunal found that paragraph 19 was neither uncertain nor ambiguous. The Tribunal held that Article 12.3 must not be used to re-open proceedings, and this is what the Applicant had attempted to do.

The Tribunal finds that jurisprudence does not constitute a new decisive fact.

The inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal confers it with power to deal with contemptuous conduct and is necessary to safeguard its judicial functions. This power need not be defined in the Tribunal’s Statute or in its Rules of Procedure. Willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s orders is contempt and is a direct attack upon the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and its power to undertake the responsibilities with which it has been entrusted in its Statute by the General Assembly. UNON management while disregarding the authority of UNAT in Villamoran on the duty of parties to comply with...

Request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action: It follows from the combined provisions of articles 2.2, 11.3 and 12.1 of the UNDT Statute that a request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action is not receivable. Even assuming that such a ruling might be open to revision, it is not possible for the Tribunal to revise it when the contested decision has been fully implemented.Extension of deadline for management evaluation: Staff rule 11.2(c) specifically provides that only the Secretary-General has the authority to extend the deadline for...

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 Ãå±±½ûµØAdministrative 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.

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, having considered the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that everything pointed to a suspect reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract. The Respondent did not give a clear reason for non-renewal, even after the Applicant specifically requested for it. The Tribunal, thus concluded that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract was prima facie unlawful. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant’s contract was to expire on 29 February 2012. The Applicant had...