2013-UNAT-316, Basenko
UNAT considered Ms Basenko’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-139. UNAT held that the reference made by UNAT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-UNAT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT. UNAT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the application.
Ms Basenko contested the decision to withdraw her offer of internship. In judgment No. 2011-UNAT-139, UNAT rejected the appeal on the basis that she was an intern and, as such, did not have standing before UNDT, but that, in any event, there was no evidence of a violation of any of her fundamental rights.
Revision of judgment requires the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and to the party applying for revision, provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.