2025-��AT-1586

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that Mr. Issa��s application does not satisfy the stringent prerequisites for receivability under the ��AT Statute, namely, that the decisive fact he now relies upon, that all ��RWA offices in the West Bank field were closed completely, was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to himself, prior to the Judgment. This was plainly known to Mr. Issa, rendering his application non-receivable on this ground alone.

The ��AT noted that Mr. Issa does not present, or even purport to possess, evidence that he in fact had complied with ��RWA��s directives to advise the Agency of his availability to work during the strike. Mr. Issa only asserts that other staff members were paid despite the closure of certain facilities. Even if this was a newly discovered fact, which it is not, this assertion could not affect the outcome of the proceeding since he does not claim that these other employees failed to comply with the advance notification directives. Because the asserted fact would not have changed the outcome, it does not meet the threshold requirement of being ��decisive��, regardless of when it was known to Mr. Issa.

Mr. Issa has thus failed to establish the fundamental predicates for a revision of the prior ��AT Judgment and his effort to initiate a second round of litigation must be denied.

The application is dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous ��AT Judgment: ��RWA staff member contested the decision of the Agency to place him on strike leave from the period 4 March to 31 May 2023. ��RWA DT dismissed the application on receivability.

In Judgment No. 2024-��AT-1503-Corr1, the Appeals Tribunal affirmed the ��RWA DT judgment.

The staff member filed an application for revision.

Legal Principle(s)

A party seeking revision of a judgment must show that the application is based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgement was rendered, unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.

An application for the revision of a judgment is not a tool for a dissatisfied party ��to have a second round of litigation.

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

Amjad Issa

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement