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 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.
UNAT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, UNAT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a UNAT judgment. UNAT held that, even if the “cheating” in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi’s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...
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 the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal’s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
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 an application for revision of judgment No. 2016-UNAT-667. Noting that there was no provision under its Rules of Procedure allowing for the submission of additional pleadings after the submission of comments to an application for revision of judgment and that no exceptional circumstances existed, UNAT dismissed Mr Awe’s motion to file additional comments. UNAT considered Mr Awe’s claim to have discovered new facts in the form of a report of the fact-finding panel which considered his complaints of abuse of authority and harassment which allegedly showed, in sum, the improper...
