�山����

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former �山����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 �山����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 �山����Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

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

UNAT had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-043 on the issue of to which UNDT Registry UNAT remanded Ms Mezoui’s case; two appeals from UNDT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. UNAT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have UNAT interfere with UNDT’s assignment of venue. UNAT held that venue was a matter for the trial court’s discretion, with which it would not interfere. UNAT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. UNAT denied the application for...

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former �山����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...

Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-UNAT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years’ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. UNAT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...

UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by UNAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. UNAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the UNAT judgment.

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...