2015-Ģ��ƵAT-573

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-Ģ��ƵAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that Ģ��ƵAT strike certain paragraphs from it. Ģ��ƵAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. Ģ��ƵAT held that his application was not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous Ģ��ƵAT judgment: The Applicant appealed the decision to terminate his appointment for knowingly misrepresenting his academic qualifications. In judgment No. 2014-Ģ��ƵAT-436, Ģ��ƵAT found that termination was not disproportionate to the offense, taking into account that the Applicant��s recruitment, in the first instance, was predicated on the existence of a degree subsequently established to be without merit and which would never have qualified him for selection by the Organisation. Ģ��ƵAT vacated judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2013/011.

Legal Principle(s)

To be successful in a request for revision, an applicant must show: the decisive facts were unknown to both Ģ��ƵAT and the party applying for revision at the time of the Ģ��ƵAT judgment; that such ignorance was not due to the negligence of the applicant; and that the facts identified would have been decisive in reaching the decision.

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

Walden

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement