2025-��AT-1543

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The ��AT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The ��AT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the ��AT Statute, and was denied.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member with the United Nations Security Force for Abyei (��ISFA) filed an application for revision of a prior ��AT Judgment, Judgment No. 2023-��AT-1344.

In Judgment No. 2023-��AT-1344, the ��AT had granted the Secretary-General��s appeal and reversed Judgment No. ��DT/2021/161.

Legal Principle(s)

An application for revision of a ��AT judgment must meet the following tests (1) there must be disclosed a new decisive fact or facts that will cause the outcome of the original appeal to be set aside and the appeal decided otherwise than it was previously; (2) the decisive fact(s) must, at the time the Appeals Tribunal��s decision was rendered, have been unknown to both the applicant and to the Tribunal; (3) that ignorance cannot be attributable to the applicant��s negligence; (4) an applicant must apply for revision within 30 calendar days following the discovery of the decisive fact and within one year of the date of the judgment which is the subject of the application for revision.

The requirement for decisiveness means that the new fact or facts must necessarily bring about a revision of the decision made previously on appeal. Unless the new fact as evidence brings about this result, revision must be refused.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

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

Antonio Ponce Gonzalez

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement