Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2016-UNAT-667. Noting that there was no provision under its Rules of Procedure allowing for the submission of additional pleadings after the submission of comments to an application for revision of judgment and that no exceptional circumstances existed, UNAT dismissed Mr Awe’s motion to file additional comments. UNAT considered Mr Awe’s claim to have discovered new facts in the form of a report of the fact-finding panel which considered his complaints of abuse of authority and harassment which allegedly showed, in sum, the improper...

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. UNAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and UNAT at the time of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. UNAT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.

UNAT considered the appeal while the application for revision before UNDT was still pending. UNAT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. UNAT considered Ms Bezziccheri’s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and UNAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of UNAT can be revised, UNAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to UNAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, UNAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...

The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-UNAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) of UNHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager’s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to UNAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by UNAT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli’s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required UNAT to revise its judgment. UNAT held that neither the remand order of UNAT nor the need to have the Appellant’s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the...

UNAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-936 by Mr Diallo. UNAT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and to him. UNAT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-914 from Mr Oglesby. UNAT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and the party applying for revision. UNAT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the Ãå±±½ûµØCharter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT opined that it was within the combined powers of the UNJSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-UNAT-1055. UNAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the UNRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout’s application was dismissed.