±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1008. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms. Fosse¡¯s claim that SCBD/±¬ÁÏÍøEP is an organisational unit within the Secretariat, and as such, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT purportedly erred when it deemed her transfer to that unit in effect caused her to relinquish her lien on the Chief of OSS post, which is located within the Secretariat. However, the Tribunal reasoned Ms. Fosse¡¯s application was inter alia rejected by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT because she had not submitted her claim for constructive dismissal for management evaluation. Therefore, in the absence of this jurisdictional...

The first management evaluation decision dealt with the issue of the promise made to the Applicant and granted him compensation of three months salary in lieu of further performance of his contract of employment. That decision itself as mentioned earlier does not prevent the Applicant from filing an appeal in respect of the same subject matter that is the non renewal of his contract. Whereas Management has considered the express promise to the Applicant and decided that monetary compensation was sufficient remedy, the Tribunal recalls that it found the ¡°circumstances surrounding the non...

Article 11.3 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT statute provides that in the absence of an appeal, a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment shall be executable following the expiry of the time provided for appeal in the statute of the Appeals Tribunal. Article 12.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT statute provides, among other things, that a party may apply to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for a revision of an executable judgment on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact. It results from the above-mentioned provisions read together that if a party discovers a decisive fact before the expiry of the time provided for appeal, that party may challenge the judgment rendered by...

Conclusion on the duration of the suspension: ¡°the length of the suspension is to be decided by the Tribunal depending on the nature and circumstances of the case and this discretion of the Tribunal cannot and should not be subject to any form of control by the administration¡±. The decision ordered on 1 September 2009 that the suspension of the contested decision to terminate the employment of the Applicant on 3 September 2009 would remain in force until the final determination of the appeal should be read as it appears and that the Applicant should be paid half his salary from the date of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant, requested on two occasions to make the necessary corrections to her application, had failed to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the application finding that the Applicant is no longer interested in pursuing her case.

Execution of ±¬ÁÏÍøAdT judgments: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAdT had, and by virtue of the transfer of cases to it, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has, power to order execution of judgments of the former ±¬ÁÏÍøAdT just as it has power to deal with applications for execution under its own Statute and Rules. Time limit for applying for execution of judgment: no time limit is set out in the rules and no party should be without a remedy where execution of judgments is in issue. In this case the Applicant had done all he could to bring the matter to early resolution, it was not his fault that his earlier requests had been ignored. Damages for non...

The Applicant filed an application, ostensibly under art. 12.2 of its Statute (regarding corrections), in relation to Di Giacomo ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/168, by which the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed his case as falling outside its jurisdiction. With regard to the present application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant, in fact, sought revision of Di Giacomo under art. 12.1 of the Statute, as well as correction under art. 12.2 of the Statute. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the present application as Di Giacomo was under appeal before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, which was therefore seized of the matter.

The ends of justice are not served but its processes stultified by requiring that an Applicant who had obtained judgment in his/her favour should seek management evaluation for enforcement or execution of the said judgment. An Applicant who refused to accept a cheque made out to her/him in time in fulfilment of a judgment sum cannot turn around to seek payment of interest on the said judgment sum on the grounds of delay. Having found that the monies awarded to the Applicant have been duly paid, the Tribunal rejects the Application in its entirety.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that a party may apply for the revision of a judgment only when that judgment is executable, which was not the case with Judgment Odio-Benito ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/019 given that the Applicant had appealed it before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and rejected it.

Judge Meeran handled the case since Judge Kaman issued the judgment on the last day of her tenure with the Dispute Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the only conclusion, which could sensibly have been drawn from the fact that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/124 did not address the claim in explicit terms was that either Judge Kaman considered it implicitly covered in the findings or alternatively she overlooked it in her final conclusions on remedies. To the extent that it may have been an oversight, on the basis of a full examination of the record and the judgments, Judge Meeran ordered that Judge Kaman had...