2022-惇蹋厙AT-1190

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. 惇蹋厙AT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the application. 惇蹋厙AT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, 惇蹋厙AT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. 惇蹋厙AT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it had no impact on the outcome of the case or the reasoning in it, and as such it did not warrant a correction or revision of judgment. 惇蹋厙AT also dismissed Ms. Reilly's request to include three additional paragraphs which she believed would give a fuller reflection of her submissions on grounds that Article 11 of the 惇蹋厙AT Statute does not contemplate the correction or revision of a judgment to include more elaborate legal arguments.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

By Judgment No. 惇蹋厙DT/2020/097, the 惇蹋厙DT dismissed Ms. Reilly＊s application which challenged ※the procedure by which her request for protection from retaliation was processed, the failure to protect her from retaliation and the failure to follow up on Ethics Office recommendations subsequent to her request for protection from retaliation§. Ms. Reilly filed an appeal and by Judgment No. 2021-惇蹋厙AT-1079, 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal.

Legal Principle(s)

A fact which is not decisive as it has no impact on the outcome of the case or the reasoning in it does not warrant a correction or revision of the Judgment. Article 11 of the Statute of the 惇蹋厙AT does not contemplate the correction or revision of a judgment to include more elaborate legal arguments.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

惇蹋厙AT dismissed the application.

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Emma Reilly

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement