2015-惇蹋厙AT-573

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-惇蹋厙AT-436 as well as a motion requesting that 惇蹋厙AT strike certain paragraphs from it. 惇蹋厙AT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. 惇蹋厙AT held that his application was not receivable. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous 惇蹋厙AT judgment: The Applicant appealed the decision to terminate his appointment for knowingly misrepresenting his academic qualifications. In judgment No. 2014-惇蹋厙AT-436, 惇蹋厙AT found that termination was not disproportionate to the offense, taking into account that the Applicant＊s recruitment, in the first instance, was predicated on the existence of a degree subsequently established to be without merit and which would never have qualified him for selection by the Organisation. 惇蹋厙AT vacated judgment No. 惇蹋厙RWA/DT/2013/011.

Legal Principle(s)

To be successful in a request for revision, an applicant must show: the decisive facts were unknown to both 惇蹋厙AT and the party applying for revision at the time of the 惇蹋厙AT judgment; that such ignorance was not due to the negligence of the applicant; and that the facts identified would have been decisive in reaching the decision.

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 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

Walden

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement