±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-873 by Ms Belkhabbaz, requesting that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT should order specific performance remedies against the individual against whom she had pursued her complaint. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, under Section 5. 18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) had the discretion to decide whether or not to institute disciplinary measures, managerial actions, or administrative actions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the managerial action upon which the ASG/OHRM decided complied with ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s direction in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-936 by Mr Diallo. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for interpretation and another for execution of judgment filed by the staff member. Regarding the application for interpretation of judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the judgment was clear in its meaning and written in plain and unambiguous language, which left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant, requiring no interpretation. Regarding the application for execution of judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no need to order execution, namely the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement, since the judgment had already been fully executed by means of compensation, rather than rescission...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had made to its own judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant¡¯s application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Appellant¡¯s application and ordered the correction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT opined that, in actuality, the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT erred in making an award of interest, which ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT are final and without appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this attempt to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-914 from Mr Oglesby. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and the party applying for revision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the ±¬ÁÏÍø Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT opined that it was within the combined powers of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1055. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application was dismissed.

The staff member submits that the ¡°decisive fact¡± which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a ¡°decisive fact¡± that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...