2018-惇蹋厙AT-890

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. 惇蹋厙AT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and 惇蹋厙AT at the time of judgment. 惇蹋厙AT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

惇蹋厙AT previous judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service on the grounds of disciplinary procedures related to sexual harassment. 惇蹋厙DT found that the disciplinary sanction imposed on the Applicant was unlawful. 惇蹋厙DT ordered the rescission of the disciplinary measure and remanded the decision to the Administration for it to resume the disciplinary procedure. 惇蹋厙DT ordered, as an alternative, in-lieu compensation. In judgment 2018-惇蹋厙AT-819, 惇蹋厙AT upheld the Secretary-General＊s appeal and vacated the 惇蹋厙DT judgment finding that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant for his serious misconduct was proportionate.

Legal Principle(s)

Any application which seeks revision of a final judgment rendered by 惇蹋厙AT can only succeed if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11. 1. The issuance of a judgment by 惇蹋厙AT does not constitute an unknown decisive fact, apt to support revision. The principles of judicial review applicable in a disciplinary case under Article 2. 1 (b) of the 惇蹋厙DT Statute are well-established. They require consideration of the evidence adduced and the procedures utilized during the investigation by the Administration.

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

Mbaigolmem

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement