2024-Ģ��ƵAT-1488

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT held that the applicant��s reliance on Article 2 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The Ģ��ƵAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ģ��ƵAT Rules of Procedure.

The Ģ��ƵAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the Ģ��ƵAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance of the Ģ��ƵAT Judgment which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal or the former staff member at the time of the decision. The Ģ��ƵAT found that the former staff member��s application basically repeated or added to the same arguments he made in his original appeal. The Ģ��ƵAT held that the former staff member has never countervailed the facts established in the Ģ��ƵAT Judgment, which is final and without appeal. The Ģ��ƵAT reiterated that the application was a disguised attempt to reopen his prior case and consequently, not meritorious.

The Ģ��ƵAT denied the former staff member��s claim to moral damages because there can be no compensation without establishing illegality.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the application.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

In Judgment No. 2023-Ģ��ƵAT-1395, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Turk��s (a former staff member) appeal against Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2022/118. In that Ģ��ƵDT Judgment, which the Ģ��ƵAT affirmed, the Ģ��ƵDT had dismissed Mr. Turk��s challenge to the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment (FTA).

The former staff member applied for revision of the Ģ��ƵAT Judgment

Legal Principle(s)

Article 2 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute lays down the jurisdiction or competence of the Appeals Tribunal to determine appeals of judgments of first instance tribunals and not the revision of a judgment of the Appeals Tribunal.

Any application that seeks a review of a final judgment rendered by the Appeals Tribunal can only succeed if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute.

For an application for revision to be receivable, four requirements must be met, namely that a new fact was discovered that was unknown to the Ģ��ƵAT or to the party applying for revision, such ignorance was not due to negligence of the party, the new fact would have been decisive to reaching the original judgment, and the application for revision is made within 30 days of discovery of the new fact and within one year of the date of the Ģ��ƵAT judgment.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

Application for revision is 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

Abdurrahman Turk

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement