2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1032

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ģ��ƵAT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by Ģ��ƵAT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli��s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required Ģ��ƵAT to revise its judgment. Ģ��ƵAT held that neither the remand order of Ģ��ƵAT nor the need to have the Appellant��s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, were new decisive facts that were unknown to Ģ��ƵAT at the time the judgment was rendered. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Agreement concluded between the Ģ��Ƶ and WMO on 20 January 2020 implied that, in compliance with the guidelines set out in the impugned judgment, a neutral first instance body has been seized of Mr Rolli��s appeal for reconsideration. Ģ��ƵAT held that the changed legal provisions were not decisive facts and that they still enabled the Appellant to have a neutral first instance body. Ģ��ƵAT held that any claims additional to those which were before Ģ��ƵAT, such as several of those made in his application for revision, should be directed to Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Rolli contested the decision to summarily dismiss him. The Secretary-General of WMO accepted the recommendation of the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) and upheld the decision to summarily dismiss Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli appealed to Ģ��ƵAT. In judgment No. 2019-Ģ��ƵAT-952, Ģ��ƵAT remanded the case to JAB for reconsideration with a number of directions, including a list of issues and questions on which the JAB was directed to make findings.

Legal Principle(s)

Parties may apply to Ģ��ƵAT for revision of judgment on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact which was unknown to both Ģ��ƵAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the judgment was rendered. A change in legal provisions subsequent to the judgment for which an application for revision is desired does not constitute a new decisive fact and is therefore not a valid basis for such an application for revision of judgment.

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

Rolli

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement