2024-Ģ��ƵAT-1414

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior Ģ��ƵAT Judgment. The Ģ��ƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the Ģ��ƵAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The Ģ��ƵAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the Ģ��ƵAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de novo.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member contested his separation from service on the grounds of constructive dismissal and coerced resignation.

In Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2022/003, the Ģ��ƵDT found that the staff member had submitted a management evaluation request out of time and rejected his application as not receivable ratione materiae. The staff member appealed. By Judgment No. 2023-Ģ��ƵAT-1316, the Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT��s Judgment.

The staff member filed an application for revision of the prior Ģ��ƵAT Judgment.

Legal Principle(s)

The authority of a final judgment cannot be readily set aside.

An applicant for revision of a judgment must identify the decisive facts that, at the time of the Appeals Tribunal��s Judgment, were unknown to both the Appeals Tribunal and the party applying for revision; 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

Outcome Extra Text

Application for revision dismissed.

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

Tejbir Singh Soni

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement