2022-惇蹋厙AT-1276

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

The 惇蹋厙AT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the 惇蹋厙DT. The 惇蹋厙AT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

The 惇蹋厙AT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous 惇蹋厙AT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

The 惇蹋厙AT was of the view that the staff member＊s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was impermissible.

The 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member submitted an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-惇蹋厙AT-1156 in which the 惇蹋厙AT had dismissed the staff member＊s appeal and found that he had breached his duty to provide correct and accurate information in his 惇蹋厙ICEF job application and agreed with the 惇蹋厙DT that his dismissal from the service of 惇蹋厙ICEF was lawful.

Legal Principle(s)

For revision, an applicant must show or identify a decisive fact that at the time of the Appeals Tribunal Judgment was unknown to both the Appeals Tribunal and the party applying for revision; that such ignorance was not due to the negligence of the applicant; that the fact identified would have been decisive in reaching the decision; and that the decisive fact existed at the time when the judgment was given and discovered subsequently. Facts which occur after a judgment has been given are not such facts within the meaning of Article 11 of the Statute and Article 24 of the Rules, irrespective of the legal consequences that such facts may have.

The Appeals Tribunal＊s judgments are decisive and definitively binding on the parties. The Appeals Tribunal is the final appellate body in the United Nations＊ internal justice system and an application for revision of a judgment cannot be a collateral means of contesting the judgment, nor can it be allowed to be a second right of appeal.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

Application for revision dismissed on the merits.

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

Ahmad Shuaib Payenda

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement