äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

The UNAT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were ¡°new facts¡± for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.

The UNAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the UNAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the UNAT Judgment where the UNAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.

Finally, the...

The UNAT interpreted the application as a request for a correction of the previous UNAT judgment.

The UNAT noted that the case file of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal revealed that the President of that Tribunal had extended the deadline for filing the appeal but a copy of that decision had not been placed in the file submitted to the UNAT. The UNAT observed that it had rendered its judgment to reject the appeal, without being aware of the President's decision.

The UNAT found, however, that the staff member's appeal was received by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal...

The UNAT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the UNDT or the UNAT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

The UNAT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The UNAT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the UNAT¡¯s decision or the reasons for it.

The UNAT was of the view that there was also...

UNAT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

UNAT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment. UNAT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. UNAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. UNAT dismissed the application. UNAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, UNAT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. UNAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

In Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050, UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-050/Corr.1, UNAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

UNAT considered Ms Roig¡¯s application for correction and noted that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. UNAT noted that the correction procedure is not an opportunity for a party to reargue their case or to merely repeat arguments that did not previously succeed. UNAT dismissed the application for correction.

UNAT considered Mrs Sidell¡¯s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, UNAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, UNAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. UNAT denied both Applications.

UNAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. UNAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a UNDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

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.