2021-UNAT-1128

2021-UNAT-1128, Diane Fairweather

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, UNAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such, the Tribunal dismissed both applications.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

A staff member filed an application with the UNDT challenging the inordinate delay in the rebuttal process of her performance evaluations. The UNDT found the application not receivable as a performance evaluation, by itself, is not an appealable administrative decision. The staff member appealed the UNDT Judgment, and UNAT, in a majority opinion, agreed that the alleged delay in the rebuttal process did not result in direct legal consequences for the staff member. The Majority also addressed the staff member’s claim that her performance appraisal had made her ineligible for certain benefits. In that regard, the Tribunal found that an automatic ineligibility for certain benefits, without a showing by the staff member that she had applied for such benefits and was subsequently denied, did not constitute direct legal consequences. The staff member applied for revision and interpretation of the UNAT Judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

A final decision of this Tribunal cannot be readily set aside based on the principle of res judicata. An application for interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubts about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. For a revision application, an applicant must show: (i) a decisive fact, at the time of the Appeals Tribunal’s judgment, was unknown to both the Appeals Tribunal and the party applying for revision; (ii) that such ignorance was not due to the negligence of the applicant, and (iii) that the facts identified would have been decisive in reaching the decision.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

Applications for interpretation and revision dismissed.

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Diane Fairweather

Entity

OHCHR

Case Number(s)

2020-1416

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York