2011-UNAT-129, Beaudry
UNAT considered Ms Beaudry’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-129. UNAT held that Ms Beaudry’s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the UNAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. UNAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. UNAT dismissed the application.
In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-129, UNAT vacated UNDT judgment No. UNDT/2010/039 and affirmed the Administration’s decision not to renew Ms Beaudry’s appointment of limited duration.
An application that, in fact, seeks a review of a final UNAT judgment can irrespective of its title, only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. Parties cannot rely on UNAT’s inherent power to reconsider to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by its Statute from a rule based on the concept of res judicata.