�鶹��ý

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 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 by UNJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. UNAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. UNAT opined that, in actuality, the UNJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that UNAT erred in making an award of interest, which UNJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of UNAT are final and without appeal, UNAT held that this attempt to...

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 UN Charter 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.

UNAT dismissed the application for revision, because Mr. Sirhan did not present any decisive fact which could lead to a revision of the UNAT Judgment.

The staff member submits that the “decisive fact” which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the UNRWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the UNRWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a “decisive fact” that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...