UNDT/2015/064 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

UNDT/2015/064, Choi

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant argued that the decisive fact in support of his application for revision was the alleged perjury of the complainant during the hearing on the merits of Case No. UNDT/GVA/2011/047. The Tribunal found that the audio recording of the hearing did not, and could not, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time Judgment UNDT/2011/181 was rendered for it contained all the information and testimony heard by the respective Judge before adjudicating the matter, and his judgment was based on the testimony given by the complainant. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the application for revision.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant filed an application requesting the revision of Judgment Choi UNDT/2011/181, which disposed of Case No. UNDT/GVA/2011/047 where he had contested a disciplinary decision dated 28 October 2009 dismissing him on grounds of harassment and abuse of authority. The Applicant argued that the decisive fact in support of his application for revision was the alleged perjury of the complainant during the hearing on the merits of Case No. UNDT/GVA/2011/047. The Tribunal found that the audio recording of the hearing did not, and could not, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time Judgment UNDT/2011/181 was rendered for it contained all the information and testimony heard by the respective Judge before adjudicating the matter, and his judgment was based on the testimony given by the complainant. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the application for revision.

Legal Principle(s)

Cumulative conditions for revision of a judgment: art. 12.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute provides cumulative conditions that must be met for an application for revision of a judgment to succeed.New decisive fact: the audio recording of a hearing alone does not, and cannot, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time a judgment is rendered, e.g. perjury.

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

Choi

Entity

ESCAP

Case Number(s)

UNDT/GVA/2014/56

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Geneva