|
|
 |
|
|
New fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings (15,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: New fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings
Total judgments found: 36
1, 2 | next >
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 8
Extract:
The complainant also bases her application for review on the discovery of new facts on which she argues that she was unable to rely in the original proceedings. The complainant’s argument in that regard is related to documents contained in or allegedly missing from her CERN medical file that she consulted after Judgment 3994 was delivered in public.
As recalled in consideration 2, [...] the Tribunal, in Judgment 3994, awarded the complainant moral damages in the amount of 5,000 Swiss francs for the injury caused by the fact that she had only been given partial access to her medical file. Raising arguments based on the content of her medical file that she consulted following the public delivery of Judgment 3994 cannot afford the complainant grounds for review of that judgment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994
Keywords:
application for review; medical records; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 4118
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law does allow a staff member concerned by an administrative decision which has become final to ask internal bodies for its review if some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or if she or he is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which she or he was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken (see Judgments 676, consideration 1, 2203, consideration 7, 2722, consideration 4, 3002, [...] consideration 14, or 3140, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 676, 2203, 2722, 3002, 3140
Keywords:
late appeal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 3815
124th Session, 2017
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3486.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The notion of a new fact, within the meaning of the [...] case law, applies to a fact which not only could not be relied on in the original proceedings by the party concerned, for a reason outside its control, but is also of material importance and would have influenced the Tribunal’s decision (see, for example, Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 2270, under 2, 2693, under 2, and 3197, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 2270, 2693, 3197
Keywords:
new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]t is patently obvious that the various documents on which the complainant bases his application for review do not contain any information of material importance that would have influenced the Tribunal’s decision had he produced them during the original proceedings.
Keywords:
new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 3561
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgment 3141 on the basis that a new fact has allegedly come to light.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he notion of a “new fact” within the meaning of the above-mentioned case law refers to an aspect of the dispute, knowledge of which during the initial proceedings would have led the Tribunal to reach a different decision on the claims submitted to it at that juncture. It cannot, under any circumstances, apply to a fact which serves as the basis for additional claims presented in subsequent proceedings."
Keywords:
new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3141
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; new claim; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 3391
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The application for review is summarily dismissed as none of the alleged grounds calls into question the Tribunal’s decision.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata; summary procedure;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he delivery of that judgment cannot be regarded as a new fact within the meaning of the case law."
Keywords:
new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 3197
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the application for review of Judgment 2946, as there was no new fact giving rise to review.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal explained in Judgment 2693, under 2: 'A new fact is a fact on which the party claiming it was unable to rely through no fault of its own; it must be a material fact likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8 and 2270, under 2).'"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 1504, 2270, 2693
Keywords:
application for review; condition; effect; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 3078
112th Session, 2012
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal may review an earlier judgment on the basis of discovery of a new fact, provided it was discovered too late to be decided in the original proceedings and that it could not have been discovered with due diligence at the time of the earlier proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 2993
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal will review an earlier judgment on the basis of discovery of a 'new' fact, but only if it was 'discovered too late to [be] cite[d] in the original proceedings' (see Judgment 442, under 3 and 13). However, the question whether a fact is 'new' is always whether it could, with diligence, have been discovered at the time of the earlier proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 2826
107th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"There was nothing to preclude the complainant from raising the argument based on the French text of the Staff Regulations in his first complaint. He was then armed with the recommendation and reasons of the Appeal Board, both of which were based on the English text of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. Further, as he was then seeking recognition of his same-sex partner as a dependent spouse, it was for him to advance argument as to why that course should be taken rather than the more limited course recommended by the Appeal Board. Moreover, the grounds on which the Tribunal may review its judgments are limited to «failure to take account of some essential fact, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the later discovery of some essential fact that the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings» (see Judgment 1252 and also Judgments 442, 555 and 649). The argument based on the French text is, in essence, an argument that the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules as barring recognition of the complainant's partner as his dependent spouse. That is not an admissible ground for the review of a judgment (see Judgment 2029). Nor is it a ground for review that, on 3 September 2007 and after Judgment 2643 was delivered, the complainant married his partner in British Columbia in accordance with the law of Canada. It would entirely defeat the principles of finality and res judicata if subsequent facts could be taken into account on an application for review of a judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 555, 649, 1252, 2029, 2643
Keywords:
application for review; dependant; finality of judgment; inadmissible grounds for review; language of rule; marital status; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata; same-sex marriage;
Judgment 2816
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"In his application for review, the complainant merely revisits and reargues the facts already considered by the Tribunal in his fourth complaint. The annexes which he submits in support of his application are all dated long before Judgment 2580 was rendered, and they shed no new light that could conceivably lead to a different analysis of the case. Therefore, there was no new fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings and which would be such as to affect the Tribunal's decision."
"In the circumstances, the Tribunal dismisses the application for review in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in Article 7 of its Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 7 of the Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2580
Keywords:
application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; summary dismissal;
Judgment 2693
104th Session, 2008
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments have the authority of res judicata. They will be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on limited grounds. These grounds include the discovery of a new fact. A new fact is a fact on which the party claiming it was unable to rely through no fault of its own; it must be a material fact likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8 and 2270, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 1504, 2270
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; definition; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; limits; misconduct; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1952
89th Session, 2000
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
"Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal's judgments are final and without appeal and that they carry the authority of res judicata. It is only in quite exceptional circumstances that an application for review, although not provided for in the Statute, can be allowed: the only grounds which may be entertained are failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new facts which the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the proceedings which led to the judgment which the complainant is seeking to reverse. The application for review should also be filed within a reasonable time and the pleas put forward should be of such a nature as to affect the original ruling. [...] In the present case, the Tribunal finds that none of the grounds exist for challenging the ruling already made[: the] application for review was only filed more than one year after the adoption of the judgment that she is challenging [...] The complainant now merely calls into question the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. [A] form, which she says constitutes a new fact, had already been sent to her counsel [...] during the internal appeals procedure. [Finally, the plea] that she was not assisted effectively by her former counsel [...] does not warrant review of the Tribunal's judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1727
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; counsel; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; omission to rule on a claim; reasonable time; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;
Judgment 1825
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments are final and binding. They are not subject to appeal. The Tribunal will not entertain applications for revision or review except in the most unusual circumstances such as fraud or the discovery of conclusive new evidence which could not have been brought forward before. The stability of judicial procedures and the need to bring an end to litigation require that parties must accept the result they obtain even when they are unsatisfied with it. Where both parties have had a full opportunity to present their case and where no new and previously undiscoverable factual element is brought forward the principle of res judicata prevents the reopening and rearguing of cases already decided."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; evidence; finality of judgment; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1648
83rd Session, 1997
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant's application for review rests on the discovery of an alleged new fact. "Is that indeed a new fact? Or was she not already aware of the substance of the minute [that she alleges the discovery of], and did she not plead accordingly in the original proceedings? The question is immaterial since in any event the minute does not affect the issue in dispute and the discovery of it does not warrant review."
Keywords:
application for review; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 1545
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Though the discovery of a new fact may afford grounds for review, the fact must date from before the material judgment and be such as would have affected the ruling had the Tribunal known of it in time. The facts the complainant alleges are subsequent to [...] the date of [the judgment in question]. They may afford grounds for a new complaint but not for review of that judgment."
Keywords:
application for review; definition; fact subsequent to the judgment; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1504
81st Session, 1996
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
For a plea alleging discovery of a new fact to succeed the fact must be one that the party seeking review "could not reasonably have been expected to discover in time and plead in the original case."
Keywords:
application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 1500
80th Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
In an earlier judgment the Tribunal held a disputed report to be lawful "so the issue is res judicata and not now open to appeal. [The complainant] cannot properly impute 'malice aforethought' to the reporting officer because he cites no fact he could not have relied on in his earlier complaint and which might afford valid grounds for review of [the judgment in question]."
Keywords:
application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1377
78th Session, 1995
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant seeks review of a judgment in which the tribunal dismissed his case as time-barred. He alleges the existence of a new fact which would at the time have led the Tribunal to declare his complaint receivable. "The Tribunal rejects as incredible the evidence tendered by the complainant. Accordingly it applies the procedure provided for in Article 7 of its Rules and summarily dismisses the application as clearly devoid of merit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
application for review; evidence; lack of evidence; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; summary procedure;
Judgment 1309
76th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Organization is seeking to adduce additional evidence, not of new facts, but of circumstances which the Organization could and should, if it so wished, have relied on in its pleadings on the original case." The plea is inadmissible.
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgments 442 and 704, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application filed by the organisation; application for review; case law; exception; general principle; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; organisation; res judicata;
Judgment 1176
73rd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal will discount "a new material fact" which the organisation supplied "too late for the complainant to be able to comment".
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; right to reply; time limit;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
