ii. Alleged new fact regarding the availability of a remedy against the decision of the Public Service Disciplinary Board 42. The Applicant presents as new evidence the Court's statement in paragraph 56 6 of the Judgment that he had an effective remedy against the decision of the Public Service Disciplinary Board which he should have exercised in order to claim to have exhausted local remedies. 43. He submits that, in rejecting his request for reinstatement in his post, the Public Service Disciplinary Board made no mention of any appeal against its decision. The Applicant further contends that when the Court stated in its judgment of 2 December 2021 that he had the avenue to bring an action for misuse of power before the administrative courts, it does not indicate to him to which administrative court he should have turned to have his right to work and to remuneration restored. 44. For the Applicant, the fact that the Court found in its judgment of 2 December 2021 that after twenty (20) years, three (3) months and ten (10) days, the Supreme Court had still not ruled on his appeal raises the question of the efficiency and effectiveness of the remedy in respect of abuse of power before the Respondent State’s courts. 45. The Applicant therefore requests the Court to instruct him as to whether there is a judicial or administrative court or tribunal empowered to receive a remedy seeking to restore his right to work and to remuneration. 6 Paragraph 56 of the Judgment of 2 December 2021 reads as follows: "With regard to the alleged violation of the right to work and remuneration, it appears from the documents in the case docket that on 4 October 2011, the Applicant petitioned the Civil Service Disciplinary Board, a body empowered by the Civil Service Statute of the Respondent State, to request his reinstatement in his position as Paymaster. After hearing the Applicant, the Judicial Officer of the Treasury and the Inspector General of the Treasury at its 30 March 2012 meeting, the Civil Service Disciplinary Board deliberated on 6 June 2012 and concluded that although the Applicant was not removed from the Civil Service, he would have to produce the ruling of the Supreme Court on his appeal before any final decision by the Board. The Court also noted that the Applicant had the possibility of appealing the decision of the Disciplinary Board to the administrative courts to exhaust domestic remedies”. 13