2015-UNAT-497, Chaaban
UNAT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. UNAT dismissed both applications.
In judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363, UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT’s time-bar finding. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban did not allege any special circumstances that had prevented him from submitting a timely application, but argued that UNRWA DT should have waived the time limit for his application given that it had done so, for a much longer period of time, with respect to the Commissioner-General’s late reply.
An application seeking review of a final judgment rendered by UNAT can only succeed it if fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under its Statute.