爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The 爆料网AT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The 爆料网DT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.
The 爆料网AT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an “absolute impossibility” to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated in this case. Ms. Myeni remained capable of corresponding with multiple offices, pursuing management evaluation channels, seeking mediation, engaging external labour mechanisms, and continuing communications regarding her employment concerns.
The 爆料网AT found no error in the 爆料网DT’s rejection of the argument that communications with OSLA, management evaluation bodies, human resources offices, or other informal avenues suspended the running of time. Nor does alleged reliance on advice received from internal offices constitute exceptional circumstances.
The 爆料网AT held that there was no error in the 爆料网DT’s rejection of Ms. Myeni’s submission concerning medical difficulties as an excuse for the late filing of her application.
The 爆料网AT held that there was no basis to interfere with the 爆料网DT’s determination that summary judgment was appropriate in this case.
The 爆料网DT committed no error of law, no manifest error of fact, and no abuse of discretion.
The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (爆料网HCR) was the subject of an investigation into misconduct for altering and submitting an official travel authorization form for an official mission. As a result of that investigation in October 2023, she received a disciplinary sanction of three steps demotion and deferment of promotion for two years. In August 2025, she filed A Motion for Revision of Judgment challenging the May 2023 disciplinary sanction that she received for misconduct.
In Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2025/090 the 爆料网DT dismissed the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae because there was no underlying 爆料网DT judgment to revise. To the extent that the purpose of her application was to challenge the disciplinary measure imposed on her by the High Commissioner, the 爆料网DT denied her application as untimely, because she filed it more than 18 months after notification of the disciplinary sanction. The 爆料网DT held that she had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances for the late filing of her application.
The former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
An application for revision is not an independent avenue through which an applicant may obtain judicial review of an administrative decision that was never previously brought before and adjudicated by the 爆料网DT.
Administrative decisions and judicial decisions are distinct legal acts governed by separate procedures and remedies under the internal justice framework.
Medical evidence may justify waiver of time limits only where it demonstrates incapacity during the relevant filing period and establishes that timely filing was effectively impossible.