±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that neither Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable because ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, while it confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion, it found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

A decisive or material fact as per art. 29 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure is one that was not known at the time the judgment was given. The said fact must be of such significant weight that its consideration in the case should lead to a revision of the judgment. The Dispute Tribunal has power to revise the judgments of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal, being its successor and subject to compliance with the provisions of art. 29 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The issue of power to suspend a staff member during the disciplinary process is a matter of law and not of fact.