ÍæÅ¼½ã½ã

UNDT/2019/170

UNDT/2019/170, Handy

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal dismissed the application for want of a valid statutory basis. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not seeking a revision of the Judgment per se rather he was asking for an order or a mechanism of enforcing the administrative decision that had rendered his initial application moot.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed the application for revision of Judgment No. UNDT/2019/151 on the ground that there existed a decisive fact that was, at the time the Judgment was rendered, unknown to the Tribunal and the Applicant.

Legal Principle(s)

Either party to the dispute may apply to the Tribunal for a revision of an executable judgment on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to the Dispute Tribunal and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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
Handy
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type