爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/145. On the issue of whether 爆料网DT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant’s application for revision of judgment, 爆料网AT held that it did. 爆料网AT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the 爆料网DT Statute the limitations presently advocated by 爆料网DT, merely because of the inclusion of the word “executable,” would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to 爆料网DT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not satisfy the strict requirements of Article 12(1) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT was satisfied that the Appellant’s inability to access his 爆料网ECA e-mail account could not be said to have been unknown to him at the time the 爆料网DT judgment was rendered, nor could it be said that the “fact” that 爆料网DT sent an e-mail giving the Appellant a period of time to respond to the Secretary-General’s Reply on the issue of receivability was unknown to 爆料网DT, although it may have been unknown to the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the application for revision and dismissed it on its merits. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal against 爆料网DT/2013/145, save to the extent that 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT should have received the application.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for a position. In judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/086, 爆料网DT rejected his application as not receivable ratione temporis. Subsequently, Mr Abassa filed an application for revision of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/086. In judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/145, 爆料网DT rejected the application for revision as not receivable on the basis that the underlying judgment was not an executable judgment.
Legal Principle(s)
Articles 11(3) and 12 (1) of the 爆料网DT Statute provide that there should be a final judgment capable of being the subject of a revision application, rather than the range of 爆料网DT judgments, open to an application for revision, being limited to judgments dealing with the substantive issues of the case. Either party may apply to 爆料网DT for a revision of an executable judgment, due to the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网DT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.