2025-UNAT-1528

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT held that the application for revision must fail since no new and decisive fact has been shown to exist that was unknown to Mr. Bernard and the Appeals Tribunal when the UNAT Judgment was made which would have materially impacted the outcome of said Judgment

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Previous UNAT Judgment: �鶹APP Environment Programme staff member contested the Organization��s decision to reclassify his post. The UNDT dismissed his application as premature and not receivable as he had failed to exhaust the available remedy by submitting an appeal of the reclassification decision. In Judgment 2024-UNAT-1422, the Appeals Tribunal affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

The staff member filed an application for revision.

Legal Principle(s)

An application for revision of a judgment is neither a collateral means of contesting the judgment, nor may it be used to seek to obtain a second right of appeal.

For an application for revision to be receivable, it should indicate that (1) the new fact discovered was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the party applying for revision at the time the judgment was rendered; (2) such ignorance was not due to negligence of the party seeking the revision; (3) the new fact would have been decisive in reaching the original judgment; and (4) the application was made within 30 calendar days of the discovery of the fact and within one year of the date of the judgment.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

Outcome Extra Text

The application for revision is dismissed.

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

John Njuguna Bernard

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement