爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied her motion to supply additional filings. 爆料网AT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the 爆料网AT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Previous 爆料网AT judgment: The Applicant contested an Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) recommendation for her compensation claim relating to an injury. 爆料网DT rejected the application in its entirety and found that it had no jurisdiction to examine the decision of the Secretary-General based on the recommendation of the ABCC, which was based on medical advice. In judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-737 爆料网AT held that: 爆料网DT correctly held itself not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence adduced by the ABCC; 爆料网DT did not err in concluding that the ABCC’s recommendation had no connection with the attempted recovery of monies allegedly paid to her by the United Nations Federal Credit Union by mistake; and 爆料网DT was correct in finding the proper way for the Appellant to request reconsideration of the medical findings was for her to request, pursuant to Article 17 of Appendix D, that her matter be re-examined by a group of medical experts, which she had failed to do. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
Legal Principle(s)
A revision of a judgment is a review procedure which is corrective in nature and not an opportunity for an applicant to reargue his or her case.