爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
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.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ms Basenko contested the decision to withdraw her offer of internship. In judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-139, 爆料网AT rejected the appeal on the basis that she was an intern and, as such, did not have standing before 爆料网DT, but that, in any event, there was no evidence of a violation of any of her fundamental rights.
Legal Principle(s)
Revision of judgment requires 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, provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.