������ҹ������

UNAT had before it an appeal against both UNDT/2016/106/Corr.1 and UNDT/2016/106/Corr.2 which did not concern the determination on the merits of the application, but rather the rejection of the Appellant’s application for interim measures by the UNDT and certain conduct by the UNDT and its Registrar. UNAT held that the Appellant’s criticisms of the UNDT decision to amend its own Judgment were well-founded as the corrections went beyond clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions; they were unexplained corrections that altered the main findings of the Judgment and...

UNAT considered the staff member’s application for correction of judgment. The staff member claimed that there was a mistake in paragraph 2 of the former UNAT judgment, contending that it erroneously refers to the COS instead of the CMS. The staff member also contended that the reference to MINUSCA on page 4 is erroneous since the mission he was assigned to was MINUSMA. UNAT noted that paragraph 2 of the judgment merely quoted the facts “as found by the Dispute Tribunal”, with a footnote reference to the paragraphs quoted from the UNDT judgment. UNAT further noted that the Secretary-General...

UNAT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-UNAT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that UNDT had made to its own judgment. UNAT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the UNDT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant’s application to UNDT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT granted the Appellant’s application and ordered the correction of the UNAT judgment.

UNAT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, UNAT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.

The Applicant filed an application, ostensibly under art. 12.2 of its Statute (regarding corrections), in relation to Di Giacomo UNDT/2011/168, by which the UNDT dismissed his case as falling outside its jurisdiction. With regard to the present application, the UNDT found that the Applicant, in fact, sought revision of Di Giacomo under art. 12.1 of the Statute, as well as correction under art. 12.2 of the Statute. The UNDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the present application as Di Giacomo was under appeal before the UNAT, which was therefore seized of the matter.

The Applicant’s request for recusal was not receivable and did not warrant a referral to the President of the Tribunal for determination. The Applicant’s claims were all of a substantive nature and would have been more appropriately dealt with by an appellate Tribunal. There was nothing to rectify or correct in the judgment as none of the particulars listed in the application were related to any errors.