Ģ��ƵDT/2013/129

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

In that judgment, the Tribunal had inter alia found that the decision to require the Applicant to revert to his initial P-3 post had not been the subject of a management evaluation and consequently was not receivable. He requested the Tribunal to vacate certain paragraphs of the judgment. The Tribunal held that for a request for revision to be successful, all the requirements in art.12.1 of its Statute have to be met.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant is a staff member of Ģ��ƵODC. On 3 July 2013, he filed an application for revision of judgment Ģ��ƵDT/2011/105.

Legal Principle(s)

Negligence: The Applicant��s lack of awareness of the importance of the need for the decisive fact to have been clearly adduced at the hearing can only be attributed to his negligence or that of his counsel advising him throughout the proceedings. Request for revision: Request for revision is only receivable if it is made within the appropriate time frame.

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

Al-Mulla

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement