2024-惇蹋厙AT-1487

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

The 惇蹋厙AT held that the application for revision had no merit. The 惇蹋厙AT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.

The 惇蹋厙AT noted furthermore that the applicant＊s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the 惇蹋厙AT in the prior proceedings.

In addition, the 惇蹋厙AT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the 惇蹋厙AT granted in part her request to increase the page limit of the application for revision, the applicant risked that her conduct would be found to constitute a manifest abuse of process, with a consequent order of costs being made against her. However, the 惇蹋厙AT did not award costs against her.

The 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member filed an application for revision of a prior 惇蹋厙AT Judgment.

In Judgment No. 2023-惇蹋厙AT-1340, the 惇蹋厙AT had dismissed the staff member＊s appeal, granted the Secretary-General＊s appeal, modified the 惇蹋厙DT Judgment and dismissed in entirety her application contesting a disciplinary decision to separate her from service for harassing her colleagues.

Legal Principle(s)

The first issue in consideration of an application for revision is whether the applicant has presented a new fact that was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and the applicant at the time of the prior Judgment.

Outcome

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 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

Mubashara Iram

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement