爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT order denying revision. 爆料网AT held that a change in law is not a “fact” contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by 爆料网AT is an issue of law, not of fact.
爆料网AT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-098. 爆料网AT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by 爆料网AT for vacating the 爆料网DT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. 爆料网AT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...
Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-爆料网AT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years’ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...
爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by 爆料网AT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. 爆料网AT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the 爆料网AT judgment.
爆料网AT considered Ms Beaudry’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-129. 爆料网AT held that Ms Beaudry’s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the 爆料网AT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. 爆料网AT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. 爆料网AT dismissed the application.
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-015 by Ms. Macharia. 爆料网AT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. 爆料网AT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the 爆料网DT Judge in her decision. 爆料网AT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...
爆料网AT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-014 by Mr Luvai. 爆料网AT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before 爆料网DT was a Facebook “friend” of Judge Boolell, the then 爆料网DT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. 爆料网AT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. 爆料网AT denied the application.
The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-爆料网AT-034. 爆料网AT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT correctly stated that the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal considered and rejected all of the Appellant’s other pleas and that for this reason, the matter of interest was res judicata. 爆料网AT also noted that 爆料网DT ordered the Secretary-General to make a payment of USD 25,000 as compensation for the excessive and inordinate delays and the emotional harm and to arrange for a Medical Board to consider outstanding invoices. 爆料网AT found that, as the Secretary-General did not appeal, he had therefore accepted the 爆料网DT’s decision and financial award. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s decision...
爆料网AT considered Mr Al-Mulla’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-226. 爆料网AT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
