Article 24

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The UNAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and the application was denied.

The UNAT held that the applicant’s reliance on Article 2 of the UNAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The UNAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure.

The UNAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the UNAT 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 UNAT 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 UNAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The UNAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the UNAT Judgment. The UNAT 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 UNAT concluded...

The UNAT 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 UNAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.

The UNAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the UNAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the UNAT Judgment where the UNAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.

Finally, the...

The UNAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the UNAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the UNAT’s prior conclusions. In particular, the UNAT found that the staff member’s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

However, the UNAT 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 decisive fact relied on by the Secretary-General to justify a revision of the UNAT judgment is said to be that Mr. Russo-Got inserted false information in his candidature regarding his alleged experience with NATO. The Secretary-General submits that he first became aware of this fact formally when it was made known to UNOPS after the issuance of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT held that the facts advanced by the Secretary-General, namely the allegedly false information Mr. Russo-Got had inserted in his candidature, could not be decisive of the Secretary-General’s case and enable him to now...

The UNAT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the UNDT. The UNAT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

The UNAT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous UNAT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

The UNAT was of the view that the staff member’s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the UNAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the UNJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a “stable union” with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

UNAT observed that Ms. Larriera’s application for revision was untimely. In addition, UNAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

The UNAT held that the Applicant’s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant. Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the UNRWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal. It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

The UNAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the UNAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the UNAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The UNAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.