2013-Ģ��ƵAT-353

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered Mr Obdeijn��s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-Ģ��ƵAT-201. Ģ��ƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn��s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn��s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. Ģ��ƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on Ģ��ƵAT��s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the Ģ��ƵAT Statute from a rule based on the concept of res judicata. Ģ��ƵAT held that the application was not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Obdeijn contested the decision not to provide reasons for the non-renewal of his appointment. In judgment No. 2012-Ģ��ƵAT-201, Ģ��ƵAT concluded that because the Administration had refused to disclose the reasons for the non-renewal, the Administration bore the burden of proof to show that the decision was neither arbitrary nor tainted by improper motives. Ģ��ƵAT held that as Mr Obdeijn had not established any economic loss, it set aside the ward under that heading and affirmed the USD 8,000 award for moral damages.

Legal Principle(s)

An application for review of a final judgment can only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established by the Ģ��ƵAT Statute, Article 11(1).

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Obdeijn

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement