2013-UNAT-353, Obdeijn
UNAT considered Mr Obdeijn’s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-UNAT-201. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn’s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn’s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on UNAT’s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the UNAT Statute from a rule based on the concept of res judicata. UNAT held that the application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.
Mr Obdeijn contested the decision not to provide reasons for the non-renewal of his appointment. In judgment No. 2012-UNAT-201, UNAT concluded that because the Administration had refused to disclose the reasons for the non-renewal, the Administration bore the burden of proof to show that the decision was neither arbitrary nor tainted by improper motives. UNAT held that as Mr Obdeijn had not established any economic loss, it set aside the ward under that heading and affirmed the USD 8,000 award for moral damages.
An application for review of a final judgment can only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established by the UNAT Statute, Article 11(1).