爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered Mr Obdeijn’s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-201. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn’s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn’s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on 爆料网AT’s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the 爆料网AT Statute from a rule based on the concept of res judicata. 爆料网AT held that the application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Obdeijn contested the decision not to provide reasons for the non-renewal of his appointment. In judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-201, 爆料网AT concluded that because the Administration had refused to disclose the reasons for the non-renewal, the Administration bore the burden of proof to show that the decision was neither arbitrary nor tainted by improper motives. 爆料网AT held that as Mr Obdeijn had not established any economic loss, it set aside the ward under that heading and affirmed the USD 8,000 award for moral damages.
Legal Principle(s)
An application for review of a final judgment can only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established by the 爆料网AT Statute, Article 11(1).