Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the staff member¡¯s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.
Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s case had already been subject to judicial review, resulting in a final and binding Judgment issued by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in 2012. By revisiting the matter in 2022, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT redecided an issue that had been res judicata since 2012. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration failed to raise this crucial issue before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT or, at least, before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this failure resulted in adding unnecessary burden on the system of administration of justice and could lead to contradictory judgments on the same issue. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred the matter to the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA for possible action to enforce accountability.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Previous Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment: The Applicant, a former staff member of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA), contested the decision of the Agency to impose on him the disciplinary measure of separation from service. In its Judgment No. 2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1360, the Appeals Tribunal affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment dismissing the staff member¡¯s application as not receivable temporis because he filed it more than three years after his receipt of the contested decision pursuant to Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal Statute.
Former staff member applied for revision of Judgment No. 2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1360.
Legal Principle(s)
An application for revision is not a normal procedure to contest executable judgments or an additional opportunity for parties to relitigate their cases that failed at trial. Rather, it is an exceptional procedure designed to address extraordinary circumstances involving the late discovery of a decisive fact.
In accordance with Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment.