|
|
 |
|
|
Material error (14,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Material error
Total judgments found: 11
Judgment 4783
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for the review of Judgment 4424.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The principles applicable in an application for review are well settled (see, for example, Judgment 4736, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein):
“[T]he only admissible grounds for review are failure to take account of material facts, a material error involving no exercise of judgement, an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea, on the other hand, afford no grounds for review.”
While he does not do so in his complaint brief, the complainant does seek to establish in his rejoinder how two of these grounds have been engaged. The first is that the Tribunal allegedly committed a material error of fact. The factual error was said to be that the Tribunal did not consider that the complainant had suffered any financial consequence for the decision placing him on unauthorised absence […], even though this was not the case. The complaint acknowledges this was not stated explicitly. Even if this analysis were correct (which it is not) it does not constitute a failure to take into account a material fact. The second ground is that the Tribunal allegedly failed to rule on a claim. Relevantly that was a claim for material damages. Having regard to the relief sought in the complaint leading to the judgment being reviewed, no such claim was made.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4736
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; material error; omission to rule on a claim;
Judgment 4698
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks reinstatement in a post to which he had been appointed and requests payment of the corresponding function allowance.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Since the Staff Regulations do not contain any specific provisions governing the conditions for the reversal – as is the case here – or the revocation of administrative decisions, this question can be settled only by referring to the general principles of law applied by the Tribunal. In accordance with these principles, an individual decision conferring an advantage on an official becomes binding on the organisation which has taken it and thus creates rights for the person concerned as soon as it has been notified to her or him in the manner prescribed by the applicable rules (see, for example, Judgments 3693, consideration 17, 3483, consideration 4, 2906, considerations 7 and 8, 2201, consideration 4, and 2112, consideration 7(a)). Where there is no express provision to this effect, as a general rule, such a decision may therefore only be overturned, whether by revocation or reversal, if two conditions are satisfied: the decision must be unlawful and it must not yet have become final (see, inter alia, Judgments 1006, consideration 2, and 994, consideration 14).
The position is different only where the initial decision stemmed from a purely factual error and where its revocation, or reversal, does not result in a breach of the requirements of the principle of good faith (see, in this respect, Judgments 3693, consideration 18, 3483, consideration 6, and 2906, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 994, 1006, 2112, 2201, 2906, 3483, 3693
Keywords:
material error; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 4365
131st Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests the review of Judgment 4224.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; material error; summary procedure;
Judgment 4198
128th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4004.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant [...] argues that the Tribunal committed a material error when it concluded [...] that he had not provided cogent evidence that the decisions to abolish his post and terminate his service were taken in breach of his right to equal treatment. This, however, is an inadmissible ground for review as the arguments and the evidence which the complainant presents to support it merely invite the Tribunal to reconsider its finding on this issue on the ground that it has, in effect, misinterpreted the facts.
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; material error;
Judgment 4130
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3970.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; material error; summary procedure;
Judgment 4127
127th Session, 2019
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3994.
Consideration 5
Extract:
With regard to the complainant’s plea that Judgment 3994 contains material errors [...], the Tribunal finds that the alleged material errors on which the complainant relies are not likely to have any bearing on the outcome of the case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994
Keywords:
material error;
Judgment 2937
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently accepted as a ground for review of its judgments 'material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which, unlike a mistake in appraisal of the facts, involves no exercise of judgment' (see Judgment 2586 and the cases cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2586
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; material error;
Judgment 1036
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7, Summary
Extract:
The complainant argues that material errors "misled the Tribunal". In Judgment 917 the Tribunal held that she had no right in law to a professional category post. She contends that FAO Rules provide for making good the lack of a university degree with proper experience and that she did qualify in law for such a post. But that is an alleged mistake of law, and not of fact; as such it does not constitute admissible grounds for review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 917
Keywords:
application for review; material error; mistake of law;
Judgment 912
64th Session, 1988
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"There are several pleas for review which the Tribunal will entertain provided that its judgment was affected, and they include a material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which involves no exercise of judgment [unlike a mistake in appraisal of facts, which involves exercise of judgment]."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; material error;
Judgment 604
52nd Session, 1984
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant invites the Tribunal to correct the material error in Judgments nos. 404, 442 and 536. The Tribunal recalls that a complainant may not submit the same pleas for review more than once. It first seeks to determine whether Judgment no. 536 suffers from any defects which would cause it to be set aside and which could then require the other judgments to be reconsidered. The Tribunal finds that Judgment no. 536 does not overlook the complainant's claims, contrary to her allegations, and is therefore not admissible for review. The complainant's criticism of the Tribunal's appraisal of the claims and certain facts in the case serves no purpose and is not an admissible ground for review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442, 536
Keywords:
application for review; material error; res judicata;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Any errors there may be in reproducing the text [of a judgment] constitute no flaw in the judgment itself."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442, 536
Keywords:
consequence; judgment of the tribunal; material error;
Judgment 570
51st Session, 1983
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8(3)
Extract:
"To displace the principle of finality, the applicant must show the exceptional case in which insistence upon it would be unjust. Such is the case of a 'new' fact which the applicant could not reasonably be expected to have discovered in time. Such also is the case of a 'slip' where, as it is sometimes put, 'even homer nods'. Such cases are likely to be very rare and it is likely also that they can be presented without any elaborate argument."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508
Keywords:
application for review; exception; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; material error; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
|
|
|
|
|
