爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-154. 爆料网AT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither 爆料网DT nor 爆料网AT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims’ case. 爆料网AT denied the application.
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-158. 爆料网AT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. 爆料网AT 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, 爆料网AT held that Mr Laeijendecker’s submissions amounted to no more than completely...
爆料网AT considered Ms Basenko’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-139. 爆料网AT held that the reference made by 爆料网AT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the application.
爆料网AT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, 爆料网AT 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 爆料网AT judgment. 爆料网AT 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...
爆料网AT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, 爆料网AT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and 爆料网AT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, 爆料网AT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...
爆料网AT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-297. 爆料网AT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. 爆料网AT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT considered the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal’s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied her motion to supply additional filings. 爆料网AT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the 爆料网AT judgment.
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2016-爆料网AT-667. Noting that there was no provision under its Rules of Procedure allowing for the submission of additional pleadings after the submission of comments to an application for revision of judgment and that no exceptional circumstances existed, 爆料网AT dismissed Mr Awe’s motion to file additional comments. 爆料网AT considered Mr Awe’s claim to have discovered new facts in the form of a report of the fact-finding panel which considered his complaints of abuse of authority and harassment which allegedly showed, in sum, the improper...
