2026-惇蹋厙AT-1672

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

The 惇蹋厙AT noted that in its prior Judgment the 惇蹋厙AT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.

The 惇蹋厙AT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The 惇蹋厙AT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione materiae.

The 惇蹋厙AT further noted that the application was, in essence, an attempt to reargue the appeal.

The 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member contested an implied decision not to provide him with a copy of the notice of the results of the reclassification exercise of the post he encumbered and the failure to advertise the vacancy of the reclassified post until after he separated from service.

In Judgment No. 惇蹋厙DT/2024/047, the 惇蹋厙DT dismissed the application as not receivable. The staff member appealed.

In Judgment No. 2025-惇蹋厙AT-1571, the 惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT Judgment.

The staff member filed an application for revision of the prior 惇蹋厙AT Judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

For an application for revision to be considered receivable, it must comply with the following four requirements simultaneously, to wit: (i) the new fact discovered was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the party applying for revision at the time the judgment was rendered; (ii) such ignorance was not due to negligence of the party seeking the revision; (iii) the new fact would have been decisive in reaching the original judgment; and (iv) the application was made within 30 calendar days of the discovery of the fact and within one year of the date of the judgment.

No party may seek revision of a judgment merely because that party is dissatisfied with the pronouncement of the Appeals Tribunal and wants to have a second round of litigation. An application for revision is not a substitute for an appeal.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

Application for revision was 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

Costas Argyrou

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement