±¬ÁÏÍø

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. He argued that the Dispute Tribunal may only issue an Order for execution under art. 12.4 of its Statute where a judgment required a time limit for execution and such execution had not been carried out.

The Tribunal considered that while Judgment Applicant ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2022/055 did not provide for its execution within a certain period of time, it was reasonable to infer that in the absence of an appeal, said judgment should have been executed within a reasonable time, after the expiry of the 60-day time limit to file an...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that execution of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment (as affirmed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT) had occurred in Mr. Ozturk¡¯s case. The Administration had complied with the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment and exercised its discretion in determining a new, revised amount to be deducted for child support from Mr. Ozturk's salary on the basis of national court orders.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Mr. Ozturk appeared only to disagree with the ¡°refund calculation¡± by the Administration for prior overpayments. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that implementation by the Administration of a Tribunal¡¯s order constitutes in itself an...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the staff member¡¯s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a ¡°stable union¡± with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Ms. Larriera¡¯s application for revision was untimely. In addition, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant¡¯s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant. Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal. It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that by the Commissioner-General had been ordered to take a new decision with respect to the staff member¡¯s request in view of the increase in his managerial and budgetary duties and responsibilities.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the Commissioner-General had not been specifically ordered to upgrade his post or to grant him a special allowance; the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had deemed it to be within the discretion of the Commissioner-General to decide whether or not he should be compensated.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.

Referring to its previous judgment in the Applicant¡¯s non-selection case, the Tribunal was of the view that in the present application for interpretation, he essentially disagreed with the Tribunal¡¯s findings on the propriety of the impugned selection exercise. Specifically, the Applicant takes issue with the Tribunal¡¯s finding in paragraph 60(b) that he ¡°failed to substantiate that the chosen candidate was not qualified either academically or by way of relevant managerial and supply chain experience¡±.

The Tribunal held that paragraph 60(b) of the judgment was both comprehensible and clear...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award for compensation in lieu of rescission included the additional cost incurred by the staff member in maintaining two households as a result of the contested decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, given the application for interpretation, it was reasonable for the Administration to await the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s interpretation. However, the Secretary-General is ordered to fully execute the original Judgment and pay to the staff member USD 450 within 30 calendar days from the issuance of the current judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, given the delay in execution and in the...