Judgment No. 4736
Decision
The application for review is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4571.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4571
Keywords
application for review; summary procedure; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant also challenges the proposal of the Tribunal’s Vice-President to adjudicate her case leading to Judgment 4571 according to the summary procedure and charges the Tribunal’s Registrar with bias and prejudice towards her. The plea against the Vice-President is irreceivable as no appeal lies from procedural decisions taken by the President of the Tribunal or by any other authority thereof in exercise of the authority granted to them under the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules (see Judgment 4541, consideration 2). Moreover, the Vice-President’s proposal is merely a preparatory procedural step and, pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Rules, it is for the panel in charge with the examination of a case to decide whether the use of the summary procedure is appropriate. As to the charges against the Registrar, he does not, in any event, adjudicate cases. It is the Tribunal which decided itself, autonomously and independently, the way it had to deal with the case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4541, 4571
Keywords
president of the tribunal; summary procedure
Considerations 6 & 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the Tribunal came to the wrong conclusion in considering that the decision which was impugned in her fourth complaint was not a final one challengeable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute. She asserts that the Tribunal relied on wrong legal provisions, made a poor interpretation of the wording of the decision in question, omitted to consider that she had lodged a prior request for review and did not take into consideration IOM’s refusal to follow the procedures established for the internal appeal process.
By those arguments, the complainant is in fact simply alleging that the Tribunal incorrectly appraised the facts in question. Such arguments do not constitute admissible grounds for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 5, and 3983, consideration 6).
[...]
[T]he omission to rule on a plea is not an admissible ground for review [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3983, 4440
Keywords
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review
Consideration 7
Extract:
The legal assessments made by the Tribunal in a judgment cannot be challenged in an application for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 4, and 3984, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 4440
Keywords
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law
Consideration 9
Extract:
Though the discovery of a new fact may indeed afford grounds for review, the fact must date from before the judgment and be such as would have affected the ruling had the Tribunal known of it in time (see Judgments 4440, consideration 8, and 1545, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1545, 4440
Keywords
admissible grounds for review; new fact
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal concludes that, as the complainant is essentially confining herself in revisiting arguments advanced unsuccessfully in her fourth complaint and expressing disagreement with the Tribunal’s appraisal of the evidence and interpretation of the law, her application for review is in fact a mere attempt to reopen issues already settled in the original judgment (see, for similar cases, Judgments 4122, consideration 7, and 3897, consideration 4). The matters raised are res judicata and she puts forward no legitimate ground to reopen the findings made by the Tribunal in the original judgment (see Judgments 4440, consideration 7, and 3479, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3479, 3897, 4122, 4440
Keywords
application for review; res judicata
| 
