Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an ¡°absolute impossibility¡± to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated in this case. Ms. Myeni remained capable of corresponding with multiple offices, pursuing management evaluation channels, seeking mediation, engaging external labour mechanisms, and continuing communications regarding her employment concerns.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rejection of the argument that communications with OSLA, management evaluation bodies, human resources offices, or other informal avenues suspended the running of time. Nor does alleged reliance on advice received from internal offices constitute exceptional circumstances.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rejection of Ms. Myeni¡¯s submission concerning medical difficulties as an excuse for the late filing of her application.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis to interfere with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that summary judgment was appropriate in this case.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error of law, no manifest error of fact, and no abuse of discretion.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR) was the subject of an investigation into misconduct for altering and submitting an official travel authorization form for an official mission. As a result of that investigation in October 2023, she received a disciplinary sanction of three steps demotion and deferment of promotion for two years. In August 2025, she filed A Motion for Revision of Judgment challenging the May 2023 disciplinary sanction that she received for misconduct.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/090 the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae because there was no underlying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment to revise. To the extent that the purpose of her application was to challenge the disciplinary measure imposed on her by the High Commissioner, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT denied her application as untimely, because she filed it more than 18 months after notification of the disciplinary sanction. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that she had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances for the late filing of her application.
The former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
An application for revision is not an independent avenue through which an applicant may obtain judicial review of an administrative decision that was never previously brought before and adjudicated by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.
Administrative decisions and judicial decisions are distinct legal acts governed by separate procedures and remedies under the internal justice framework.
Medical evidence may justify waiver of time limits only where it demonstrates incapacity during the relevant filing period and establishes that timely filing was effectively impossible.