2016-Ģ��ƵAT-651

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the Ģ��ƵDT RoP. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to Ģ��ƵAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to Ģ��ƵAT and the moving party. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to summarily dismiss him from service on grounds of harassment and abuse of authority. Ģ��ƵDT issued its judgment on merits upholding the disciplinary decision taken to summarily dismiss the Applicant. The Applicant submitted an application for revision of judgment. The Secretary-General in his reply requested an award of costs against the Applicant for abuse of process. Ģ��ƵDT issued its judgment on revision dismissing the application in its entirety due to the attempt of the Applicant to relitigate his case without valid grounds.

Legal Principle(s)

In Bofill (judgment No. 2014-Ģ��ƵAT-478), Ģ��ƵAT stressed that: ��This Tribunal has repeatedly held that it ��has been strictly enforcing, and will continue to strictly enforce, the various time limits. The Appeals Tribunal has followed the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal according to which only circumstances ��beyond his or her control that prevented the applicant from exercising the right of appeal in a timely manner may be considered ��exceptional circumstances�� justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit��. The Ģ��ƵDT Statute and its Rules of Procedure set out the material elements which a moving party must show for an application for revision to be granted, and they are practically identical to those in the Statute and Rules of Procedure of Ģ��ƵAT, namely: ��(1) a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and the moving party; (2) such ignorance was not due to the negligence of the moving party; and (3) the new fact would have been decisive in reaching the original decision��.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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

Choi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement