2017-惇蹋厙AT-735

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2016-惇蹋厙AT-667. Noting that there was no provision under its Rules of Procedure allowing for the submission of additional pleadings after the submission of comments to an application for revision of judgment and that no exceptional circumstances existed, 惇蹋厙AT dismissed Mr Awe＊s motion to file additional comments. 惇蹋厙AT considered Mr Awe＊s claim to have discovered new facts in the form of a report of the fact-finding panel which considered his complaints of abuse of authority and harassment which allegedly showed, in sum, the improper role of the Chief of Administrative Support (CAS), 惇蹋厙AMI in the process. 惇蹋厙AT held that it was satisfied that the fact-finding panel did not make any findings regarding the conduct of the CAS in relation to the contested decision and that the arguments put forward by Mr Awe were not new facts, and were speculative and unconvincing. 惇蹋厙AT recalled that an application for revision is not a substitute for an appeal and no party may seek revision of a judgment merely because he or she is dissatisfied with it and wants to have a second round of litigation. 惇蹋厙AT held that it was not persuaded that Mr Awe had produced a decisive new fact justifying a revision of the 惇蹋厙AT judgment. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

In judgment No. 惇蹋厙DT/2015/099, 惇蹋厙DT found that the decision to relocate Mr. Awe was lawful and that the reassignment was a proper exercise of the Secretary-General＊s discretion. In judgment No. 2016-惇蹋厙AT-667, 惇蹋厙AT dismissed Mr. Awe＊s appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT judgment in its entirety.

Legal Principle(s)

There must be an end to litigation and the stability of the judicial process requires that final judgments by an appellate court be set aside only on limited grounds and for the gravest of reasons. A revision of a final judgment is an exceptional procedure and not an additional opportunity for a party to re-litigate arguments that failed at trial or on appeal.

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

Awe

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement