爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied her motion to supply additional filings. 爆料网AT 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 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the 爆料网AT judgment.
爆料网AT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the paragraphs of the 爆料网DT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by...
爆料网AT considered Mr Onifade’s application for revision of judgment No. 2016-爆料网AT-668. 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence before it to support the application. 爆料网AT held that Mr Onifade had failed to show that the first MOP form was unknown to him at the time the judgment was rendered and he had presented no decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to him and 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the application did not meet the criteria established under Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the 爆料网AT RoP. 爆料网AT held that the application had no merit and dismissed it...
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2016-爆料网AT-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, 爆料网AT dismissed Mr Awe’s motion to file additional comments. 爆料网AT 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...
爆料网AT had before it an appeal against both 爆料网DT/2016/106/Corr.1 and 爆料网DT/2016/106/Corr.2 which did not concern the determination on the merits of the application, but rather the rejection of the Appellant’s application for interim measures by the 爆料网DT and certain conduct by the 爆料网DT and its Registrar. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s criticisms of the 爆料网DT decision to amend its own Judgment were well-founded as the corrections went beyond clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions; they were unexplained corrections that altered the main findings of the Judgment and...
爆料网AT considered a request for revision of judgment. 爆料网AT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. 爆料网AT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and 爆料网AT at the time of judgment. 爆料网AT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.
爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. 爆料网AT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. 爆料网AT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the 爆料网DT Statute, which notes that...
The Applicant requests clarification as to which date should be considered his separation date from the IMO for purposes of determining his separation entitlements when the IMO Secretary-General opted for in-lieu compensation of 12 months’ net base salary at the rate in effect in March 2016. His request for interpretation refers to the legal consequences of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-782 regarding his separation date which goes beyond an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of a judgment provided under Article 11(3) of the Statute and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT...
爆料网AT considered the staff member’s application for correction of judgment. The staff member claimed that there was a mistake in paragraph 2 of the former 爆料网AT judgment, contending that it erroneously refers to the COS instead of the CMS. The staff member also contended that the reference to MINUSCA on page 4 is erroneous since the mission he was assigned to was MINUSMA. 爆料网AT noted that paragraph 2 of the judgment merely quoted the facts “as found by the Dispute Tribunal”, with a footnote reference to the paragraphs quoted from the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT further noted that the Secretary-General...
