2011-UNAT-163, Masri
UNAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098. UNAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by UNAT for vacating the UNDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. UNAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and rejected by the previous judgment and its actual goal was to litigate the case de novo, an option which is not provided to the parties by the applicable law. UNAT dismissed the application.
Previous UNAT judgment: In judgment No. 2010-UNAT-098, UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and affirmed the administrative decision of summary dismissal.
An application for revision of a final judgment by UNAT can only succeed if it fulfils the strict criteria established by Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. The authority of a final judgment – res judicata – cannot be readily set aside.