爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-爆料网AT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) of 爆料网HCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager’s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to 爆料网AT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit additional pleadings, a referral for accountability enforcement, an award of costs and compensation for additional moral harm. 爆料网AT held that it was clear from communications and submissions on record that both the Applicant and 爆料网AT were aware that the IGO had not conducted a formal investigation and therefore, 爆料网AT did not accept that the Applicant had first became aware of this fact in January 2020. Accordingly, 爆料网AT held that it could not be considered a newly discovered fact to warrant a revision. In the alternative, 爆料网AT held that the fact that the IGO did not conduct a formal investigation was not a material fact which, had it been known, would have impacted the 爆料网AT judgment. 爆料网AT refused the Applicant’s request for leave to submit pleadings to respond to the Secretary-General’s comments, on the basis that the Applicant already had the opportunity to respond to this information before 爆料网DT and 爆料网AT and no exceptional circumstances existed. 爆料网AT refused the Applicant’s request for a referral for accountability and costs against the Administration as these matters had already been litigated and refused by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT refused the Applicant’s request for moral harm on the basis that it was a new claim presented for the first time in an application for revision and 爆料网AT did not accept that compensation was available for alleged harm deriving from a judicial determination. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision of the judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant disputed his non-selection for a position. In judgment 2019-爆料网AT-944, 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and confirmed 爆料网DT’s determination that he had received full and fair consideration for the position.
Legal Principle(s)
Any application which seeks revision of a final judgment rendered by 爆料网AT can only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute.