Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered Mr Gharemani¡¯s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-171. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the request was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the application for revision.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Gharemani, a holder of a Special Services Agreement (SSA), contested the decision to bar him from Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ Office in Vienna (Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµOV) and to deny his counsel access to his Official Status File and related documents. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT rejected his application as non-receivable, ratione personae, and Mr Ghahremani appealed to Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT. In judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-171, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT judgment.
Legal Principle(s)
The authority of a final judgment ¨C res judicata ¨C cannot be so readily set aside. Any application which seeks a review of a final judgment rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT can, irrespective of its title, only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute.