±¬ÁÏÍø

Granting an application for revision: As consistently held by the Appeals Tribunal, ¡°the review procedure [of revision] is of a corrective nature and thus is not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case¡± (see Sanwidi 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-321, para. 8. Moreover, an application for revision of a judgment is only receivable if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established under art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 29 of its Rules of Procedure, namely (see James 2016-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-680, para. 13): ¡°¡­ Accordingly, an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if...

The Tribunal cannot consider a hypothetical scenario concerning which there is no instant case or controversy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the request for interpretation noting that the decision was clear and unambiguous and considered the Applicant¡¯s request to, in essence, be requesting the Tribunal to address a hypothetical future scenario.

Whilst the prescribed form refers to ¡°judgments¡± and not ¡°orders¡±, the Tribunal found that this is a matter of form and not substance. The Tribunal found that the suspension of action Order No. 276 (NY/2016) was dispositive of the case at the time, and it also found that the motion under review submitted by way of a motion for correction of a judgment on Form ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/F.8E rev. 1 of July 2011 was receivable. The Tribunal considered whether, since the Applicant was requesting para. 13 of Order 276 be modified to include a subsequent occurrence, a revision was warranted under art. 29 of the Dispute...

The Tribunal stressed that the Applicant, contrary to his assertion, was not awarded compensation for loss of earnings. He was awarded material damages for his loss of opportunity.; The Tribunal reviewed the paragraph sought to be interpreted and was of the view that the Judgment was comprehensible and clear. The expression ¡°net base salary¡± was found to be clear and unambiguous and to refer to gross salary minus staff assessment. It does; not include a post adjustment component. The Tribunal also clearly did not provide for the taking into consideration of a possible step increment in the...

Considering that in the circumstances of the case it is in the interest of all parties that the present matter be disposed of as soon as possible, the Tribunal deemed appropriate to rule on the application for revision by summary judgment, in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, without waiting for the Applicant¡¯s reply.; An application for revision is not possible when the judgment in question is subject to appeal; the appropriate avenue for a party to adduce new facts during this period is through appellate proceedings.; Since the judgment was not executable, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found not...

The Tribunal rejected the application noting that the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the Respondent has executed the Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/185.

With respect to the content of judgment Lloret Alca?iz et al., the applicants raised the following question to the Tribunal: Is it the intention of the Tribunal in this Judgment for the Applicants to continue to receive a ¡°dependency rate of salary¡± after their first dependent child ceases to be dependent and up until their youngest dependent child is no longer recognized as a dependent?; The Tribunal found that the Applicants asked it to go beyond the conclusions of its Judgment in raising ex post facto a question about the interpretation of the former regime, which was not raised nor...

In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds it has no competency to disturb the award in the judgment, as the Tribunal has already rejected the revision application in Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2019/016. The Tribunal finds that justice would be better served for these matters to be considered by the Appeals Tribunal as there is a further issue that complicates the assessment of compensation herein in light of changed circumstances or new facts.

The Tribunal finds the Respondent¡¯s application for interpretation as an attempt to have the Tribunal re-examine its Order, which is not a proper way to seek a reversal or modification of the Tribunal¡¯s Order. As the Appeals Tribunal clearly stated, the exercise of interpretation under art. 30 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure is not an avenue for review or the basis for a fresh judgment. It goes without saying that the motion is not receivable and must be dismissed. The Administration provided some reasonable explanation for the contested decision, which is supported by evidence...

The Tribunal noted that at the time of the hearing, Respondent counsel had not been instructed or informed the recruitment exercise in question and consequently did not apprise the Tribunal about this fact, just as the Applicant¡¯s Counsel did not know about the Applicant¡¯s application for the position. The Tribunal held that the applying party, the Respondent, meaning the Administration at large, must have known about the ongoing recruitment exercise and the Applicant¡¯s job application for the Job Opening. At the very least, such knowledge must be imputed or assumed to have been known to the...