51�Թ�

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.

UNAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-UNAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that UNAT strike certain paragraphs from it. UNAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. UNAT held that his application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. UNAT dismissed both applications.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the UNDT RoP. UNAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to UNAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to UNAT and the moving party. UNAT...

UNAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. UNAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the UNAT judgment.

UNAT considered Mr Onifade’s application for revision of judgment No. 2016-UNAT-668. UNAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the application. UNAT held that Mr Onifade had failed to show that the first MOP form was unknown to him at the time the judgment was rendered and he had presented no decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to him and UNAT. UNAT held that the application did not meet the criteria established under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT RoP. UNAT held that the application had no merit and dismissed it...