爆料网

2013-爆料网AT-356

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment. 爆料网AT held that the alleged error in the factual findings of 爆料网DT did not constitute circumstances that warranted revision, because none of them would result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by 爆料网AT in vacating the 爆料网DT judgment and affirming Mr Massah’s separation from service for serious misconduct. 爆料网AT held that the application was inadmissible since its goal was to litigate the case de novo as a result of counsel not agreeing with the final judgment, an option which was not provided to the parties by the applicable law. 爆料网AT held that the application for revision did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and, as such, was not receivable. 爆料网AT rejected the application for revision of judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Massah was separated from service on the grounds of serious misconduct in the form of sexual exploitation and abuse. Following a 爆料网DT judgment which found no evidence to establish any act of sexual exploitation on the part of Mr Massah and that he had misused the Organisation’s information technology resources by using his computer to store pornographic pictures. In judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-274, 爆料网AT reversed 爆料网DT’s findings, concluding there was sufficient evidence of sexual exploitation and Mr Massah’s dismissal was proportionate with the nature of the misconduct.

Legal Principle(s)

An application for revision of a final judgment can only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under the 爆料网AT Statute, Article 11(1). The Authority of a final judgment – res judicata – cannot be easily set aside.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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
Massah
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type