2017-��AT-719

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT considered a request for revision of judgment. ��AT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. ��AT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous ��AT judgment: Mr Saeed contested the decision to approve a new workflow in a division. In judgment No. 2016-��AT-617, ��AT dismissed the appeal in its entirety, stating that Mr Saeed had not based his appeal on any grounds for appeal set forth in the ��AT Statute. With regard to the approval of the new workflow, ��AT held that even if it were to be considered a decision subject to appeal, the request for decision review was submitted after the expiry of the deadline as correctly pointed out by ��RWA DT.

Legal Principle(s)

The procedure of a revision of judgment is corrective in nature and not an opportunity for an applicant to reargue his case.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Saeed

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement