2024-惇蹋厙AT-1478

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

The 惇蹋厙AT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior 惇蹋厙AT Judgment. Mr. Almasri＊s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history.

The 惇蹋厙AT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the 惇蹋厙AT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri＊s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance.

The 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member contested 惇蹋厙HCR＊s decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment on the basis of unsatisfactory performance.

In Judgment No. 惇蹋厙DT/2022/072, the 惇蹋厙DT dismissed the application and confirmed that 惇蹋厙HCR＊s payment of three months＊ net-base salary for procedural irregularities in his case was sufficient. Mr. Almasri appealed.

In Judgment No. 2023-惇蹋厙AT-1377, the 惇蹋厙AT upheld the justification for the non-renewal but identified a significant procedural irregularity. As a remedy, the 惇蹋厙AT awarded six months＊ net base salary and an equivalent amount representing the Organization＊s contribution to the 惇蹋厙JSPF on his behalf for six months.

Mr. Almasri filed an application for revision of the prior 惇蹋厙AT Judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

An applicant for revision of a judgment must identify the decisive facts that, at the time of the 惇蹋厙AT Judgment, were unknown to both the 惇蹋厙AT and the party applying for revision; that such ignorance was not due to the negligence of the applicant; and that the facts identified would have been decisive in reaching the decision.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

Applicaiton for revision is dismissed.

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

Mohammad Almasri

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement