2021-��AT-1152

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-��AT-1055. ��AT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the ��RWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout��s application was dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

In Judgment No. ��RWA/DT/2020/006, the ��RWA DT dismissed as not receivable Mr. Zaqqout��s applications challenging the monthly extensions of his Limited Duration Contracts and eventually the non-extension of his final contract. In Judgment No. 2020-��AT-1055, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Zaqqout��s appeal.

Legal Principle(s)

The elements necessary for a revision are i) that a ��decisive�� fact must have been discovered (the fact must be decisive in the sense that it will, if considered, change the outcome of the decided appeal); ii) the applicant must show that when the Judgment was rendered, this decisive fact was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the applicant; iii) that omission cannot have been the result of negligence; and iv) the applicant must have made his application for revision within the period of 30 calendar days after the discovery of the decisive fact and within one year of the issuing of the Judgment. For the purpose of time limits for filing an application for revision, the date a ��AT Judgment is considered to have been rendered is the date the translation of the Judgment into the language in which the self-represented applicant operates has been received by the applicant.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

The application for revision is dismissed.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Ashraf Zaqqout

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement