�山����

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 revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-154. UNAT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither UNDT nor UNAT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims’ case. UNAT denied the application.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-158. UNAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. UNAT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, UNAT held that Mr Laeijendecker’s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

UNAT considered Ms Basenko’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-139. UNAT held that the reference made by UNAT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-UNAT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT. UNAT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the application.

UNAT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, UNAT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a UNAT judgment. UNAT held that, even if the “cheating” in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi’s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...

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 considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2013/145. On the issue of whether UNDT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant’s application for revision of judgment, UNAT held that it did. UNAT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the UNDT Statute the limitations presently advocated by UNDT, merely because of the inclusion of the word “executable,” would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to UNDT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, UNAT held that...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s motion “for a finding of the Respondent’s dissembling. ” With respect to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, UNAT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and UNAT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, UNAT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-297. UNAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. UNAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT dismissed the appeal.