The 爆料网AT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the 爆料网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 爆料网AT held that the applicant’s reliance on Article 2 of the 爆料网AT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The 爆料网AT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure.
The 爆料网AT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the 爆料网AT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...
The 爆料网AT held that the application for revision had no merit. The 爆料网AT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.
The 爆料网AT noted furthermore that the applicant’s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the 爆料网AT in the prior proceedings.
In addition, the 爆料网AT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the 爆料网AT granted in...
The 爆料网AT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The 爆料网AT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.
The 爆料网AT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the 爆料网AT Judgment. The 爆料网AT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The 爆料网AT concluded...
The 爆料网AT specified that the sole issue was whether the applicant, a former staff member, had presented a new and decisive fact that was unknown to him and the Appeals Tribunal when the prior 爆料网AT Judgment was decided, and that this fact would have materially impacted the outcome of that Judgment.
The 爆料网AT reviewed the documents submitted by the former staff member and concluded that they were all known to him prior to the issuance of the 爆料网AT Judgment. The former staff member essentially repeated or added to the same arguments he made in his original appeal, and the 爆料网AT had already...
The 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the 爆料网AT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The 爆料网AT further held that the staff member’s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the 爆料网AT.
The 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
Accountability Referral: The 爆料网AT noted...
The 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were “new facts” for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the 爆料网AT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.
The 爆料网AT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the 爆料网AT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the 爆料网AT Judgment where the 爆料网AT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.
Finally, the...
The 爆料网AT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior 爆料网AT Judgment. The 爆料网AT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the 爆料网AT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The 爆料网AT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the 爆料网AT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...
The 爆料网AT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the 爆料网AT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the 爆料网AT’s prior conclusions. In particular, the 爆料网AT found that the staff member’s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the 爆料网AT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.
However, the 爆料网AT granted the staff member’s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...
The 爆料网AT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. The 爆料网AT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the 爆料网AT and the 爆料网DT. As a result, the 爆料网AT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the 爆料网AT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the 爆料网AT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...
