51ÁÔÆæ

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 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 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 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-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 appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Terragnolo¡¯s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by UNDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, UNAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. UNAT noted that the impugned judgment followed UNAT¡¯s jurisprudence, but UNDT¡¯s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. UNAT held that due...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by UNAT. On the merits, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of UNDT Order No. 233, which contended that UNDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. UNAT found that UNDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. UNAT noted that Article 36 of the UNDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the UNDT Order, as there was no case before UNDT to which Article 36 could apply. UNAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow UNDT to...

UNAT considered Mr Gakumba¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-387. UNAT held that it did not fulfil the statutory requirements and was seemingly disguised as an attempt to re-open the case. UNAT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to submit that the UNDP Conversion Policy issued in 2010 could not be argued by the staff member in 2012 before the UNDT, or in 2013 before UNAT. UNAT held that no valid reason had been provided about the untimely submission of the application for revision. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.