2023-UNAT-1352

2023-UNAT-1352, Samer Nayif Mahmud Mohammad

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT held that the Applicant’s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant. Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the UNRWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal. It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by the Applicant were merely nuances of the same general argument challenging the validity of the evidence produced after the re-opening of the investigation which led to his summary dismissal. It held that such arguments pertain to facts known to the Applicant at the time of the proceedings and, therefore, they should have been presented earlier and cannot be admitted as sufficient grounds for revision of Judgment No. 2022-UNAT-1195.

The UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

In the underlying UNAT Judgment, the Applicant had contested the decision of the UNRWA to impose on him the disciplinary measure of summary dismissal for serious misconduct. In Judgment No. 2022-UNAT-1195, the Appeals Tribunal affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2021/003, in which the UNRWA DT dismissed the Applicant’s application.

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure, for an application for revision to be considered receivable, it should comply with four requirements simultaneously:

i) the new fact discovered was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the party applying for revision at the time the judgment was rendered; ii) such ignorance was not due to negligence of the moving party; iii) the new fact would have been decisive in reaching the original judgment; and iv) the application was made within 30 calendar days of the discovery of the fact and within one year of the date of the judgment.

The Appeals Tribunal Statute provides that the judgments of the Appeals Tribunal shall be final and without appeal. An application for revision is not a substitute for appeal and no party may seek revision of a judgment merely because it is dissatisfied with the pronouncement of the Appeals Tribunal and wants to have a second round of litigation. Moreover, revision of a final judgment is an exceptional procedure and not an additional opportunity for a party to relitigate arguments that failed at trial or on appeal.

Outcome

Revision, correction, interpretation or execution

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Samer Nayif Mahmud Mohammad

Entity

UNRWA

Case Number(s)

2022-1742

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York