�山����

The Applicant argued that the decisive fact in support of his application for revision was the alleged perjury of the complainant during the hearing on the merits of Case No. UNDT/GVA/2011/047. The Tribunal found that the audio recording of the hearing did not, and could not, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time Judgment UNDT/2011/181 was rendered for it contained all the information and testimony heard by the respective Judge before adjudicating the matter, and his judgment was based on the testimony given by the complainant. The Tribunal...

The Tribunal considered that given the Respondent’s appeal filed on 6 April 2015 against Judgment No. UNDT/2015/012, the judgment is not executable at this stage, pursuant to art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.

The Applicant requests revision of UNDT/2017/012 on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider his closing statement. The Tribunal concludes that there are no legal reasons for the Judgment to be revised. The Tribunal also notes that the reason invoked in the application for revision may be submitted as a ground of appeal, if any, before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal.

Granting an application for revision: As consistently held by the Appeals Tribunal, “the review procedure [of revision] is of a corrective nature and thus is not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case” (see Sanwidi 2013-UNAT-321, para. 8. Moreover, an application for revision of a judgment is only receivable if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established under art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute and art. 29 of its Rules of Procedure, namely (see James 2016-UNAT-680, para. 13): “… Accordingly, an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if...

The Tribunal cannot consider a hypothetical scenario concerning which there is no instant case or controversy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the request for interpretation noting that the decision was clear and unambiguous and considered the Applicant’s request to, in essence, be requesting the Tribunal to address a hypothetical future scenario.

Whilst the prescribed form refers to “judgments” and not “orders”, the Tribunal found that this is a matter of form and not substance. The Tribunal found that the suspension of action Order No. 276 (NY/2016) was dispositive of the case at the time, and it also found that the motion under review submitted by way of a motion for correction of a judgment on Form UNDT/F.8E rev. 1 of July 2011 was receivable. The Tribunal considered whether, since the Applicant was requesting para. 13 of Order 276 be modified to include a subsequent occurrence, a revision was warranted under art. 29 of the Dispute...

Considering that in the circumstances of the case it is in the interest of all parties that the present matter be disposed of as soon as possible, the Tribunal deemed appropriate to rule on the application for revision by summary judgment, in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, without waiting for the Applicant’s reply.; An application for revision is not possible when the judgment in question is subject to appeal; the appropriate avenue for a party to adduce new facts during this period is through appellate proceedings.; Since the judgment was not executable, the UNDT found not...

In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds it has no competency to disturb the award in the judgment, as the Tribunal has already rejected the revision application in Judgment No. UNDT/2019/016. The Tribunal finds that justice would be better served for these matters to be considered by the Appeals Tribunal as there is a further issue that complicates the assessment of compensation herein in light of changed circumstances or new facts.

The Tribunal noted that at the time of the hearing, Respondent counsel had not been instructed or informed the recruitment exercise in question and consequently did not apprise the Tribunal about this fact, just as the Applicant’s Counsel did not know about the Applicant’s application for the position. The Tribunal held that the applying party, the Respondent, meaning the Administration at large, must have known about the ongoing recruitment exercise and the Applicant’s job application for the Job Opening. At the very least, such knowledge must be imputed or assumed to have been known to the...