2024-Ģ��ƵAT-1416

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. The Ģ��ƵAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ģ��ƵAT and the Ģ��ƵDT. As a result, the Ģ��ƵAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the Ģ��ƵAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the Ģ��ƵAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and this was not a statutory basis for revision. The Ģ��ƵAT further warned that the staff member could potentially be liable for costs if he persisted in making additional submissions like this.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous Ģ��ƵAT Judgment: The Applicant, a former staff member of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (Ģ��ƵJSPF), contested the decision of the Administration to accept his resignation. In its Judgment No. 2022-Ģ��ƵAT-1278, the Appeals Tribunal affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment dismissing the staff member��s application as not receivable materiae because he failed to request management evaluation of that decision within the 60-day statutory time limit, in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c).

Former staff member applied for revision of Judgment No. 2022-Ģ��ƵAT-1278.

Legal Principle(s)

The purpose of an application for revision should not be to relitigate the case de novo merely because the applicant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the judgment.

In accordance with Article 11(1) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute, for a request for revision to succeed, the applicant must satisfy several cumulative conditions: identify a decisive fact that, at the time of the Ģ��ƵAT judgment, was unknown to both the Appeals Tribunal and the party applying for revision; demonstrate that such ignorance was not due to the negligence of the applicant; and establish that the identified fact would have been decisive in reaching the decision. Moreover, the application for revision must be made within 30 calendar days from the discovery of the decisive fact and within one year of the date of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Langa Dorji

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement