2013-惇蹋厙AT-323

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-惇蹋厙AT-154. 惇蹋厙AT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither 惇蹋厙DT nor 惇蹋厙AT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims＊ case. 惇蹋厙AT denied the application.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous 惇蹋厙AT judgment: The Applicant challenged the restriction placed on his access to the 惇蹋厙 Office in Vienna. 惇蹋厙DT rejected the application, finding that a retiree who volunteered as counsel did not have a contractual relationship with the 惇蹋厙 and thus, no right to challenge the Secretary-General＊s decision. In judgment No. 2011-惇蹋厙AT-154, 惇蹋厙AT affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

In an application for revision of judgment, any new evidence is irrelevant if 惇蹋厙AT has no jurisdiction.

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 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

Sims

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement