Â鶹APP

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-158. UNAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. UNAT 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, UNAT held that Mr Laeijendecker¡¯s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

UNAT considered Ms Basenko¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-139. UNAT held that the reference made by UNAT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-UNAT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT. UNAT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the application.

UNAT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, UNAT 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 UNAT judgment. UNAT 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...

UNAT considered motions seeking execution of four judgments (judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357, judgment No. 2013-UNAT-359, judgment No. 2013-UNAT-358, and judgment No. 2013-UNAT-360). UNAT denied these motions, noting that execution did occur in each of the cases. UNAT 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 UNAT Statute and Article 27 of the UNAT RoP. With respect to Ademagic et al. and Mr Longone¡¯s motion to hold decision letters in...

UNAT considered Ms Das¡¯s application for Interpretation of judgment with respect to the award of interest on the compensatory damages and any remaining termination benefits and entitlements. UNAT noted that its earlier jurisprudence held that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement becomes due, which in this case is the date of the UNDT judgment. UNAT noted that it had merely affirmed the award of compensatory damages and termination benefits by UNDT and had not initiated it. UNAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that...

UNAT considered Mr Gakumba¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-387. UNAT held that it did not fulfil the statutory requirements and was seemingly disguised as an attempt to re-open the case. UNAT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to submit that the UNDP Conversion Policy issued in 2010 could not be argued by the staff member in 2012 before the UNDT, or in 2013 before UNAT. UNAT held that no valid reason had been provided about the untimely submission of the application for revision. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by UNAT. On the merits, UNAT found that UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT held that UNDT erred by concluding that ST/AI/2002/3 applied to UNICEF, as the UNICEF Handbook establishes the procedure that a staff member must follow should they wish to rebut the content of their performance report. UNAT noted that the principle articulated in Villamoran v. Secretary-General of the Â鶹APP (2011-UNAT-160), which holds that administrative issuances have greater legal authority over manuals such as the UNICEF Handbook, only where there is a conflict between guidelines and manuals and a properly promulgated...

UNAT considered Ms Roig¡¯s application for correction and noted that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. UNAT noted that the correction procedure is not an opportunity for a party to reargue their case or to merely repeat arguments that did not previously succeed. UNAT dismissed the application for correction.

UNAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit UNDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that UNDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. UNAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfortUNATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.