UNDT/2017/090, Peglan
The Tribunal held that the application for revision was manifestly inadimissable because the Applicant did not bring to the attention of the Tribunal the existence of any new decisive fact which was unknown to the Tribunal or to himself at the time Judgment No. UNDT/2016/059 was rendered. The issue of lack of investigation alleged by the Applicant was properly considered in Judgment No. UNDT/2016/059.
Refusal by ONUCI Security Investigation Unit to carry out an investigation into the 6 April 2011 incident reported by the Applicant.
An application for revision of execuatable judgment is based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to the Tribunal and to the party applying for revision, and such ignorance was not due to negligence.
The Tribunal found the application not receivable and dismissed it in its entirety.