±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the motion for execution of judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-359. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it had been provided with information from the Secretary-General that all six members of Dalgaard et al. had either resigned, retired or transferred from ICTY prior to the issuance of the impugned decision. In light of this information, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that none of them could rightfully claim that they were entitled to moral damages as a result of their rights being violated by the impugned decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT opined that the course of action taken by the Secretary-General, in deciding that Dalgaard et al. were...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-297. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT strike certain paragraphs from it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for execution. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-221. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Simmons¡¯ contentions were not sustained. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the application for execution.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-363. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed both applications.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Karseboom¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment regarding ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and the moving party. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the execution of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-516 wherein ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion seeking execution was properly filed before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the only...