Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered Ms Basenko¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-139. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the reference made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the application.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ms Basenko contested the decision to withdraw her offer of internship. In judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-139, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT rejected the appeal on the basis that she was an intern and, as such, did not have standing before Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT, but that, in any event, there was no evidence of a violation of any of her fundamental rights.
Legal Principle(s)
Revision of judgment requires the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT and to the party applying for revision, provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.