2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1048

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-Ģ��ƵAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General��s Office (IGO) of Ģ��ƵHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager��s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to Ģ��ƵAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit additional pleadings, a referral for accountability enforcement, an award of costs and compensation for additional moral harm. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was clear from communications and submissions on record that both the Applicant and Ģ��ƵAT were aware that the IGO had not conducted a formal investigation and therefore, Ģ��ƵAT did not accept that the Applicant had first became aware of this fact in January 2020. Accordingly, Ģ��ƵAT held that it could not be considered a newly discovered fact to warrant a revision. In the alternative, Ģ��ƵAT held that the fact that the IGO did not conduct a formal investigation was not a material fact which, had it been known, would have impacted the Ģ��ƵAT judgment. Ģ��ƵAT refused the Applicant��s request for leave to submit pleadings to respond to the Secretary-General��s comments, on the basis that the Applicant already had the opportunity to respond to this information before Ģ��ƵDT and Ģ��ƵAT and no exceptional circumstances existed. Ģ��ƵAT refused the Applicant��s request for a referral for accountability and costs against the Administration as these matters had already been litigated and refused by Ģ��ƵAT. Ģ��ƵAT refused the Applicant��s request for moral harm on the basis that it was a new claim presented for the first time in an application for revision and Ģ��ƵAT did not accept that compensation was available for alleged harm deriving from a judicial determination. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application for revision of the judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant disputed his non-selection for a position. In judgment 2019-Ģ��ƵAT-944, Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and confirmed Ģ��ƵDT��s determination that he had received full and fair consideration for the position.

Legal Principle(s)

Any application which seeks revision of a final judgment rendered by Ģ��ƵAT can only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11(1) of 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

Ross

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement