爆料网AT considered Mr Elasoud’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-173. 爆料网AT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and 爆料网AT were not aware when his appeal was considered. 爆料网AT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered Mr Gharemani’s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-171. 爆料网AT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. 爆料网AT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the request was time-barred...
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-163 (judgment on application for revision). 爆料网AT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网AT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. 爆料网AT held that the application for...
爆料网AT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of 爆料网AT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years’ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. 爆料网AT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of 爆料网AT’s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-154. 爆料网AT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither 爆料网DT nor 爆料网AT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims’ case. 爆料网AT denied the application.
爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation by Mr Shkurtaj on the issue of interest. 爆料网AT referred to Warren (judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-059) and Mmata (judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-092) for the holding that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement became due. 爆料网AT held that the interest payable was at the US Prime Rate and that an extra five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate if the judgment was not executed within 60 days of its issuance. 爆料网AT held that the date from which interest on the compensation was to be paid at the US Prime Rate was...
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-158. 爆料网AT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. 爆料网AT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, 爆料网AT held that Mr Laeijendecker’s submissions amounted to no more than completely...
爆料网AT considered Ms Basenko’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-139. 爆料网AT held that the reference made by 爆料网AT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the application.
爆料网AT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, 爆料网AT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a 爆料网AT judgment. 爆料网AT held that, even if the “cheating” in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi’s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...
爆料网AT considered motions seeking execution of four judgments (judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-357, judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-359, judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-358, and judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-360). 爆料网AT denied these motions, noting that execution did occur in each of the cases. 爆料网AT also noted that payment of the moral damages had been effected and a new conversion process had been completed, thus, none of the applications merited an order for execution pursuant to Article 11(4) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 27 of the 爆料网AT RoP. With respect to Ademagic et al. and Mr Longone’s motion to hold decision letters in...
