UNDT/2018/048, Munyan
Considering that in the circumstances of the case it is in the interest of all parties that the present matter be disposed of as soon as possible, the Tribunal deemed appropriate to rule on the application for revision by summary judgment, in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, without waiting for the Applicant’s reply.; An application for revision is not possible when the judgment in question is subject to appeal; the appropriate avenue for a party to adduce new facts during this period is through appellate proceedings.; Since the judgment was not executable, the UNDT found not to have jurisdiction to entertain the application.; In any event, since the Respondent discovered the fact that prompted his application for revision in the summer of 2017, that is prior to the issuance of Judgment Munyan, and he filed the application for revision only on 23 March 2018, he did not comply with the 30day time limit set forth in art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.; In view of the above the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable.
The Respondent in Judgment Munyan UNDT/2018/028 (“the Respondent”), rendered on 26 February 2018 in Case No. UNDT/GVA/2017/004, requests revision of that judgment.
The issue of an application’s receivability is a matter of law which may be assessed even if not raised by the parties and without waiting for the opposing party to file a reply.; The receivability of an application for revision is subject to the following cumulative requirements: a)The Judgment is executable; and; b)The application is made within 30 calendar days of the discovery of the fact by the requesting party and no more than one year from the date of the judgment.