爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by 爆料网AT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli’s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required 爆料网AT to revise its judgment. 爆料网AT held that neither the remand order of 爆料网AT nor the need to have the Appellant’s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, were new decisive facts that were unknown to 爆料网AT at the time the judgment was rendered. 爆料网AT held that the Agreement concluded between the 爆料网 and WMO on 20 January 2020 implied that, in compliance with the guidelines set out in the impugned judgment, a neutral first instance body has been seized of Mr Rolli’s appeal for reconsideration. 爆料网AT held that the changed legal provisions were not decisive facts and that they still enabled the Appellant to have a neutral first instance body. 爆料网AT held that any claims additional to those which were before 爆料网AT, such as several of those made in his application for revision, should be directed to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the application.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Rolli contested the decision to summarily dismiss him. The Secretary-General of WMO accepted the recommendation of the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) and upheld the decision to summarily dismiss Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli appealed to 爆料网AT. In judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-952, 爆料网AT remanded the case to JAB for reconsideration with a number of directions, including a list of issues and questions on which the JAB was directed to make findings.
Legal Principle(s)
Parties may apply to 爆料网AT for revision of judgment on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact which was unknown to both 爆料网AT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the judgment was rendered. A change in legal provisions subsequent to the judgment for which an application for revision is desired does not constitute a new decisive fact and is therefore not a valid basis for such an application for revision of judgment.