2013-Ģ��ƵAT-393

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered the Applicant��s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-Ģ��ƵAT-209. Ģ��ƵAT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant��s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. Ģ��ƵAT held that the application was submitted almost one year after the issuance of the judgment, which meant it was time-barred. Ģ��ƵAT held that the submission was manifestly inadmissible and would not be granted. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

In judgment No. 2012-Ģ��ƵAT-209, Ģ��ƵAT reversed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment on the Merits, finding that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant had been properly made and concluding that the appeal against the judgment on Compensation had become moot.

Legal Principle(s)

Res judicata cannot be readily set aside. An application seeking review of a final judgment rendered by Ģ��ƵAT can only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under the Ģ��ƵAT Statute.

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

Applicant

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement