2011-��AT-102

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-��AT-034. ��AT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the ��AT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. ��AT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. ��AT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The former staff members contested the decision to deny their request for restoration of full pension for one-third lump sum recipients after a pre-determined period of commutation. In judgment 2010-��AT-034, ��AT dismissed the appeal.

Legal Principle(s)

Revision of a final judgment is an exceptional procedure and not an additional opportunity for a party to relitigate arguments that failed at trial or on appeal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Muthuswami et al.

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement