äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-131 by Ms Cohen. UNAT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute or Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. UNAT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about UNAT reducing the compensation awarded. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT held that neither Article 11 of the UNAT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the UNDT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former UN Administrative Tribunal. UNAT held that the application before UNDT was not receivable because UNDT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. UNAT held that, while it confirmed the UNDT¡¯s conclusion, it found that UNDT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered Mr Elasoud¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-173. UNAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and UNAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. UNAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered Mr Gharemani¡¯s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-171. UNAT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. UNAT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the request was time-barred...

UNAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-UNAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). UNAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. UNAT held that the UNAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. UNAT held that the application for...

UNAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of UNAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years¡¯ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. UNAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by UNAT. UNAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of UNAT¡¯s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-154. UNAT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither UNDT nor UNAT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims¡¯ case. UNAT denied the application.

UNAT considered an application for interpretation by Mr Shkurtaj on the issue of interest. UNAT referred to Warren (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-059) and Mmata (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-092) for the holding that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement became due. UNAT held that the interest payable was at the US Prime Rate and that an extra five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate if the judgment was not executed within 60 days of its issuance. UNAT held that the date from which interest on the compensation was to be paid at the US Prime Rate was...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-158. UNAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. UNAT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, UNAT held that Mr Laeijendecker¡¯s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

UNAT considered Ms Basenko¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-139. UNAT held that the reference made by UNAT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-UNAT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT. UNAT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the application.