�山����

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2013/145. On the issue of whether UNDT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant’s application for revision of judgment, UNAT held that it did. UNAT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the UNDT Statute the limitations presently advocated by UNDT, merely because of the inclusion of the word “executable,” would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to UNDT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, UNAT held that the Appellant did not satisfy the strict requirements of Article 12(1) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT was satisfied that the Appellant’s inability to access his UNECA e-mail account could not be said to have been unknown to him at the time the UNDT judgment was rendered, nor could it be said that the “fact” that UNDT sent an e-mail giving the Appellant a period of time to respond to the Secretary-General’s Reply on the issue of receivability was unknown to UNDT, although it may have been unknown to the Appellant. UNAT held that there was no merit in the application for revision and dismissed it on its merits. UNAT dismissed the appeal against UNDT/2013/145, save to the extent that UNAT found that UNDT should have received the application.