UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal held that the application for revision was manifestly inadimissable because the Applicant did not bring to the attention of the Tribunal the existence of any new decisive fact which was unknown to the Tribunal or to himself at the time Judgment No. UNDT/2016/059 was rendered. The issue of lack of investigation alleged by the Applicant was properly considered in Judgment No. UNDT/2016/059.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Refusal by ONUCI Security Investigation Unit to carry out an investigation into the 6 April 2011 incident reported by the Applicant.

Legal Principle(s)

An application for revision of execuatable judgment is based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to the Tribunal and to the party applying for revision, and such ignorance was not due to negligence.

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

Outcome Extra Text

The Tribunal found the application not receivable and dismissed it in its entirety.

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

Peglan

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement