¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-UNAT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by UNAT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli’s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required UNAT to revise its judgment. UNAT held that neither the remand order of UNAT nor the need to have the Appellant’s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, were new decisive facts that were unknown to UNAT at the time the judgment was rendered. UNAT held that the Agreement concluded between the UN and WMO on 20 January 2020 implied that, in compliance with the guidelines set out in the impugned judgment, a neutral first instance body has been seized of Mr Rolli’s appeal for reconsideration. UNAT held that the changed legal provisions were not decisive facts and that they still enabled the Appellant to have a neutral first instance body. UNAT held that any claims additional to those which were before UNAT, such as several of those made in his application for revision, should be directed to UNDT. UNAT dismissed the application.