±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, and the application was denied.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, and was denied.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment. Mr. Almasri¡¯s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri¡¯s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the applicant¡¯s reliance on Article 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and Article 24 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for revision had no merit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted furthermore that the applicant¡¯s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in the prior proceedings.

In addition, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted in...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT specified that the sole issue was whether the applicant, a former staff member, had presented a new and decisive fact that was unknown to him and the Appeals Tribunal when the prior ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment was decided, and that this fact would have materially impacted the outcome of that Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reviewed the documents submitted by the former staff member and concluded that they were all known to him prior to the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment. The former staff member essentially repeated or added to the same arguments he made in his original appeal, and the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had already...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that when the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the staff member¡¯s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

Accountability Referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the terms of the impugned Judgment were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable, and consequently, the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. In particular, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was no ambiguity concerning the correctness of the grounds for and the nature of the disciplinary measure taken by the Administration against the former staff member.

Similarly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasoning regarding the referral of the case to the High Commissioner for possible action to enforce accountability was clear and unambiguous. However, even if the...