爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. 爆料网AT held that Mr Fedorchenko’s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, 爆料网AT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or ambiguous. On ICAO’s request for costs on the basis that the applications were frivolous and filing them constituted an abuse of process, 爆料网AT held that it was not inclined to award costs against Mr Fedorchenko despite the burden on the Respondent in having to defend against the applications. 爆料网AT advised Mr Fedorchenko that he might be subject to an award of costs if he continued to file frivolous motions. 爆料网AT denied the Respondent’s request for costs. 爆料网AT dismissed the applications for correction and interpretation of judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Previous 爆料网AT judgment: Mr Fedorchenko contested alleged irregularities in an investigation. In judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-499, 爆料网AT granted, in part, Mr Fedorchenko’s appeal and remanded the case to the ICAO Advisory Joint Appeals Board.
Legal Principle(s)
An application seeking review of a final judgment rendered by 爆料网AT can only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under its Statute.