In that judgment, the Tribunal had inter alia found that the decision to require the Applicant to revert to his initial P-3 post had not been the subject of a management evaluation and consequently was not receivable. He requested the Tribunal to vacate certain paragraphs of the judgment. The Tribunal held that for a request for revision to be successful, all the requirements in art.12.1 of its Statute have to be met.
The 爆料网DT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The 爆料网DT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Receivability: The Tribunal considered whether it has the requisite jurisdiction to make a determination on an application for interpretation of an order as opposed to a final judgment. Noting that: (i) there is no provision in the 爆料网DT Statute or Rules of Procedure governing interpretation of orders or expressly prohibiting interpretation of a decision that is labeled “Order”; and (ii) that regardless of whether decisions on applications for suspension of action are labeled as orders or judgments, they determine substantial issues, the Tribunal, pursuant to articles 19 and 36 of the Rules of...
The Tribunal held that there are two stages in the procedure for the interpretation of a judgment. First, receivability must be determined and secondly if it is receivable whether it should be interpreted. Receivability: The Tribunal considered whether the filing of an appeal should be taken to mean that it is under consideration and therefore debar an applicant from an interpretation. The Tribunal held that the mere filing of an appeal against a judgment by one party to a case constitutes no legal impediment to the other party filing for an interpretation because the filing of an appeal is...
The Judgment does not give rise to any uncertainty in terms of its execution or its binding effect under art. 32 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. the meaning of Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/087 leaves no reasonable doubt as to the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to the Tribunal’s decision, and thus does not require clarification.
Interpretation – As held in Sidell 2014-爆料网AT-489 and Abbasi 2013-爆料网AT-315, the purpose of interpretation is not to determine the disagreement of an applicant with a judgment who wishes to reargue an appeal. Interpretation is only needed to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it leaves reasonable doubts about the will of the Tribunal or the arguments leading to a decision. But if the judgment is comprehensible, whatever the opinion the parties may have about it or its reasoning, an application for interpretation is not admissible.
The Applicant argued that the decisive fact in support of his application for revision was the alleged perjury of the complainant during the hearing on the merits of Case No. 爆料网DT/GVA/2011/047. The Tribunal found that the audio recording of the hearing did not, and could not, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time Judgment 爆料网DT/2011/181 was rendered for it contained all the information and testimony heard by the respective Judge before adjudicating the matter, and his judgment was based on the testimony given by the complainant. The Tribunal...
The Tribunal considered that given the Respondent’s appeal filed on 6 April 2015 against Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/012, the judgment is not executable at this stage, pursuant to art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.
The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.
The Applicant requests revision of 爆料网DT/2017/012 on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider his closing statement. The Tribunal concludes that there are no legal reasons for the Judgment to be revised. The Tribunal also notes that the reason invoked in the application for revision may be submitted as a ground of appeal, if any, before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal.
