²Ù±ÆÊÓƵapp

The Applicant filed an application, ostensibly under art. 12.2 of its Statute (regarding corrections), in relation to Di Giacomo UNDT/2011/168, by which the UNDT dismissed his case as falling outside its jurisdiction. With regard to the present application, the UNDT found that the Applicant, in fact, sought revision of Di Giacomo under art. 12.1 of the Statute, as well as correction under art. 12.2 of the Statute. The UNDT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the present application as Di Giacomo was under appeal before the UNAT, which was therefore seized of the matter.

UNDT noted that a party may apply for the revision of a judgment only when that judgment is executable, which was not the case with Judgment Odio-Benito UNDT/2011/019 given that the Applicant had appealed it before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. UNDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and rejected it.

The Tribunal finds that jurisprudence does not constitute a new decisive fact.

Request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action: It follows from the combined provisions of articles 2.2, 11.3 and 12.1 of the UNDT Statute that a request for revision of a ruling on an application for suspension of action is not receivable. Even assuming that such a ruling might be open to revision, it is not possible for the Tribunal to revise it when the contested decision has been fully implemented.Extension of deadline for management evaluation: Staff rule 11.2(c) specifically provides that only the Secretary-General has the authority to extend the deadline for...

A decisive or material fact as per art. 29 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure is one that was not known at the time the judgment was given. The said fact must be of such significant weight that its consideration in the case should lead to a revision of the judgment. The Dispute Tribunal has power to revise the judgments of the former UN Administrative Tribunal, being its successor and subject to compliance with the provisions of art. 29 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The issue of power to suspend a staff member during the disciplinary process is a matter of law and not of fact.

In this case, the Applicant filed an application for revision of the judgment out of time. A decisive or material fact is one that was not known at the time the judgment was given. That fact must be of significant weight such that its application to the case should lead to a revision of the judgment.The Applicant was investigated and later summarily dismissed by UNHCR on allegations of corruption in refugee processing in the Nairobi office of UNHCR. The Applicant was also arrested by the Kenyan Police and charged in a Kenyan Court with various criminal offences, however, the Applicant was...

The Tribunal rejected the application and awarded costs for abuse of process.

A judgment on receivability is not an executable judgment. It is not a judgment on the merits of the case where all issues have been adjudicated upon. An executable judgment is one in which the court determines on the substantive issues of the case having heard and deliberated on the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties. In so doing, it ends the dispute before the court which heard it. A judgment on receivability is based on a procedural issue. In the present case, the procedural issue had to do with the timeliness of the application and scope of the court’s jurisdiction where the...

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.

The UNDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. UNDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The UNDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.