2013-惇蹋厙AT-297

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

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

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application with 惇蹋厙DT for revision of the former 惇蹋厙 Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 976. 惇蹋厙DT found the application not to be receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

惇蹋厙AT has no competence to revise the judgments of the former 惇蹋厙 Administrative Tribunal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙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

Likuyani

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement