爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-084 filed by the estate of Mr Sanwidi. 爆料网AT held that the estate of Mr Sandwidi did not present new evidence but merely expressed disagreement with the judgment. 爆料网AT denied the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered Mr El Khatib’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-142. 爆料网AT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. 爆料网AT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. 爆料网AT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered the Applicant’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-209. 爆料网AT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant’s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. 爆料网AT held that the application was submitted almost one year...
爆料网AT considered Mr Maghari’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-039. 爆料网AT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to 爆料网AT and to the party applying for revision. 爆料网AT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the 爆料网AT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment. 爆料网AT held that the alleged error in the factual findings of 爆料网DT did not constitute circumstances that warranted revision, because none of them would result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by 爆料网AT in vacating the 爆料网DT judgment and affirming Mr Massah’s separation from service for serious misconduct. 爆料网AT held that the application was inadmissible since its goal was to litigate the case de novo as a result of counsel not agreeing with the final judgment, an option which was not provided to the parties by the applicable law...
爆料网AT considered an application of the Secretary-General for interpretation of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-240. 爆料网AT held that the application did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute and was therefore manifestly inadmissible. 爆料网AT held that the judgment clearly stated that the utilisation of foreign tax credits constituted a reimbursable payment method and the tax unit had calculated the relevant reimbursable amount at USD 15, 239. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s application and ordered the Secretary-General to pay Ms Johnson USD 15,239 with interest, stating that the...
爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-185. 爆料网AT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by 爆料网DT in its Case Management Order. 爆料网AT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. 爆料网AT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. 爆料网AT rejected the application for interpretation.
爆料网AT considered Mr Obdeijn’s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-201. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn’s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn’s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on 爆料网AT’s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the 爆料网AT Statute from a rule based on...
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-131 by Ms Cohen. 爆料网AT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute or Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about 爆料网AT reducing the compensation awarded. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT held that neither Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal. 爆料网AT held that the application before 爆料网DT was not receivable because 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. 爆料网AT held that, while it confirmed the 爆料网DT’s conclusion, it found that 爆料网DT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
