�鶹��ý

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-UNAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, UNAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles’ were unknown to the UNAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. UNAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and UNAT were unaware of various UNRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. UNAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, UNAT also reasoned prior UNRWA DT judgments do not...

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...

UNAT considered an application for “reconsideration” of Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-029bis. UNAT noted that its judgments are final and not subject to appeal except under Article 11 of its Statute, relating to the procedures for revision and correction of material errors and that no appeal against res judicata is admissible. UNAT held that the application was an appeal against res judicata and, as such, was inadmissible. Noting that Ms. El-Khatib’s appeal was dismissed as non-receivable and without merit, UNAT held that the application for “reconsideration” constituted an abuse of the appeals...

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former UN Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. UNAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former UN Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. UNAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the former UN Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

UNAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former UN Administration Tribunal. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

UNAT affirmed the UNDT order denying revision. UNAT held that a change in law is not a “fact” contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by UNAT is an issue of law, not of fact.

UNAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098. UNAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by UNAT for vacating the UNDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. UNAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

UNAT considered Ms Beaudry’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-129. UNAT held that Ms Beaudry’s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the UNAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. UNAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. UNAT dismissed the application.