2014-Ģ��ƵAT-484

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2013/145. On the issue of whether Ģ��ƵDT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant��s application for revision of judgment, Ģ��ƵAT held that it did. Ģ��ƵAT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute the limitations presently advocated by Ģ��ƵDT, merely because of the inclusion of the word ��executable,�� would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to Ģ��ƵDT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not satisfy the strict requirements of Article 12(1) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT was satisfied that the Appellant��s inability to access his Ģ��ƵECA e-mail account could not be said to have been unknown to him at the time the Ģ��ƵDT judgment was rendered, nor could it be said that the ��fact�� that Ģ��ƵDT sent an e-mail giving the Appellant a period of time to respond to the Secretary-General��s Reply on the issue of receivability was unknown to Ģ��ƵDT, although it may have been unknown to the Appellant. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no merit in the application for revision and dismissed it on its merits. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal against Ģ��ƵDT/2013/145, save to the extent that Ģ��ƵAT found that Ģ��ƵDT should have received the application.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to select him for a position. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2012/086, Ģ��ƵDT rejected his application as not receivable ratione temporis. Subsequently, Mr Abassa filed an application for revision of judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2012/086. In judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2013/145, Ģ��ƵDT rejected the application for revision as not receivable on the basis that the underlying judgment was not an executable judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

Articles 11(3) and 12 (1) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute provide that there should be a final judgment capable of being the subject of a revision application, rather than the range of Ģ��ƵDT judgments, open to an application for revision, being limited to judgments dealing with the substantive issues of the case. Either party may apply to Ģ��ƵDT for a revision of an executable judgment, due to the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ģ��ƵDT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Abassa

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement