¹ú²úAV

The UNAT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment.  Mr. Almasri’s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history. 

The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known.  Instead, it was Mr. Almasri’s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...