2011-UNAT-145, Eid
UNAT affirmed the UNDT order denying revision. UNAT held that a change in law is not a “fact” contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the UNDT Statute. UNAT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by UNAT is an issue of law, not of fact.
UNDT Order: The Secretary-General submitted an application with UNDT for revision of its judgment, under Article 29 of the UNDT RoP. The Secretary-General considered the new decision of UNAT to fix the interest rate applicable to pre-judgment compensation at the US prime rate to be a “decisive fact” which was unknown at the time of the UNDT judgment. The Secretary-General maintained that UNDT’s award of eight per cent rate on the pre-judgment compensation was contrary to the new jurisprudence of UNAT and, should, therefore be revised. UNDT rejected the application for revision, holding that the issuance of new jurisprudence by UNAT did not constitute a new fact.
The issuance of new jurisprudence by UNAT is an issue of law and does not constitute a new fact.