Application for execution (5,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Application for execution
Total judgments found: 110
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 4887
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants filed applications for execution of Judgment 4551.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that Judgment 4551, in consideration 14, directly set aside some parts of the 31 May 2013 Communiqué. In this respect, Judgment 4551 is self-executing and does not need further implementation by the Organisation. The complainants are seeking a legal effect already stemming from Judgment 4551, and, thus, their applications for execution are unfounded in this respect.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4551
Keywords:
application for execution;
Consideration 5
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that the Tribunal’s judgments carry the authority of res judicata and must be executed as ruled, and the parties must work together in good faith to this end. Judgments must be executed within a reasonable period of time. In order to ascertain whether this is the case, all the circumstances of the case must be taken into account, especially the nature and the scope of the action which the organisation is required to take (see Judgments 4708, consideration 6, and 3066, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4708
Keywords:
application for execution;
Judgment 4872
138th Session, 2024
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant in the original proceedings has applied for the execution of Judgment 4577.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4785
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 4429.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4429
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4784
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 4051.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4051
Keywords:
annual leave; application for execution; complaint allowed; home leave; reinstatement;
Judgment 4747
137th Session, 2024
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 4447.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4447
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint dismissed;
Considerations 1 & 9
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law establishes that, according to the provisions of Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are “final and without appeal”, and they are therefore “immediately operative”; the principle that its judgments are immediately operative is also a corollary of their res judicata authority. For this reason, international organizations which have recognized the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see, for example, Judgment 3152, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein). The parties must work together in good faith to this end and the execution of a judgment must occur within a reasonable time, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, especially the nature and the scope of the action which the organization is required to take (see, for example, Judgments 3656, consideration 3, 3066, consideration 6, and 2684, considerations 4 and 6).
[...]
[I]t is obvious to the Tribunal that, by 9 September 2022, the IOC had done what was necessary towards the execution of order 2 of the decision in Judgment 4447 and consideration 15 of that judgment in good faith and within a reasonable time, given all of the circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3066, 3152, 3656
Keywords:
application for execution; execution of judgment;
Judgment 4708
136th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 4480.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that its judgments are “final and without appeal” under Article VI of its Statute, carry res judicata authority and are immediately operative. As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled. The parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments within a reasonable timeframe. Moreover, under the Tribunal’s case law, the application for execution may relate only to the execution of a judgment and not, for example, to the allegedly harmful consequences of the manner in which it was executed. When the Tribunal allows a complaint, sends the case back so that the organisation may resume or continue some procedure, and leaves it a degree of discretion, the new decision will ordinarily be subject to appeal, and in that case the internal remedies do have to be exhausted (see, for example, Judgment 1771, consideration 2(b)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1771
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation;
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4480
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4413
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgments 3887 and 3986, and the EPO filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3887, as clarified by Judgment 3986.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application filed by the organisation; application for execution; execution of judgment;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The application for interpretation filed by the EPO, as based on the impossibility to execute Judgments 3887 and 3986, raises a threshold issue. The Tribunal finds that the two facts reported above under consideration 7 and proven by the EPO, have rendered impossible the complete execution of the two judgments. In the unusual circumstances of this case, the Tribunal will make no further orders for the execution of Judgments 3887 and 3986. Firstly, forcing Mr B. to undergo a medical examination would impair his fundamental rights to dignity and health. Secondly, the refusal of psychiatric experts to carry out an examination only on the basis of documents was an objective obstacle that made it impossible to fully execute the judgments. Neither of these obstacles can be attributed to the EPO. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the EPO could do nothing more to execute the judgments, and Mr B.’s application for execution must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887, 3986
Keywords:
application for execution; execution of judgment; medical opinion;
Judgment 4410
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 4065.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he pleadings of the parties in the present proceedings show that they still hold differing views as to what should be done as the next step to complete the process by complying with the discussion mandated in Manual paragraph 330.3.26. This does not provide a basis for the Tribunal to entertain an application for [...] execution [...].
Keywords:
application for execution;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is not open to the Tribunal, when examining an application for execution, to modify the content of the provisions of the judgment in respect of which the application is made (Judgment 4093, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4093
Keywords:
application for execution;
Judgment 4409
132nd Session, 2021
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4215.
Considerations 3-5
Extract:
It should be noted that OTIF, by a decision adopted by its Administrative Committee at its session on 27 and 28 June 2017 and notified by its Secretary General to the Director-General of the International Labour Office (ILO) by a letter of 17 January 2018, has withdrawn its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, as set out in Judgments 1043, consideration 3, and 4141, considerations 2 to 4, that withdrawal took effect on the date of the deliberation of the Governing Body of the ILO taking note of the decision in question, which in the present case took place on 13 March 2018.
Although the Tribunal had jurisdiction to rule on the complaint that gave rise to Judgment 4215, which had been filed before that date and which OTIF had expressly excluded from the scope of its withdrawal decision, since that date, the Tribunal has no longer been competent to hear new complaints against that Organisation.
However, it must be considered that, where, as in this case, the Tribunal has delivered a judgment on a complaint against an international organisation which has since withdrawn from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it nevertheless remains competent to hear any applications for interpretation of that judgment. The Tribunal is, by definition, the only body capable of interpreting its judgments, should that be necessary. For similar reasons, the Tribunal also remains competent to hear applications for execution or review that may be brought in respect of a judgment delivered in the same circumstances.
Notwithstanding the date on which it was filed, this application does therefore fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and it is noted that the Organisation does not raise any objections on this point in its reply.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1043, 4141, 4215
Keywords:
application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; competence of tribunal;
Judgment 4387
131st Session, 2021
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants filed applications for execution of Judgment 4155.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4324
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The applicant seeks execution in full of Judgments 3045 and 3792 and recognition that the disease which led to his invalidity status is occupational.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint dismissed; illness; service-incurred;
Judgment 4315
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3962.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4294
130th Session, 2020
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3905.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4284
130th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to find that UNESCO has failed to execute Judgment 3936 and to order the Organization to review her case.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint allowed;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that its judgments, which, according to Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and which also have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, under 12, and 3152, under 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, under 6, and 3635, under 4). The parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments (see, for example, Judgments 2684, under 6, and 3823, under 4). Judgments must be executed within a reasonable period of time (see Judgments 2684, under aforementioned consideration 6, and 3656, under 3). In order to ascertain whether that has occurred, all the circumstances of the case must be taken into account, especially the nature and the scope of the action which the organisation is required to take (see, in particular, Judgment 3066, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3066, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3656, 3823
Keywords:
application for execution; execution of judgment;
Judgment 4248
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3446.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint allowed; invalidity; medical examination; professional accident;
Judgment 4235
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 4093.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; application for interpretation; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4214
129th Session, 2020
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 4008.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; cause of action; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4202
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgments 3887 and 3986 and contests the implied rejection of his request for the execution of those judgments.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint dismissed; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 4093
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3689.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint allowed; illness;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s judgments, which, under Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and which, furthermore, have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, consideration 12, and 3152, consideration 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, consideration 6, and 3635, consideration 4). The parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments (see, for example, Judgments 2684, consideration 6, and 3823, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3823
Keywords:
application for execution; good faith; res judicata;
Judgment 4092
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to order WHO to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Judgment 3871 and, in particular, to reinstate him with all legal consequences.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant presents, for the first time in his rejoinder, various claims for compensation for injuries that he considers he has suffered as a result of WHO’s conduct. However, according to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in the original complaint (see, for example, Judgments 960, consideration 8, 1768, consideration 5, and 2996, consideration 6). This case law also applies to applications for execution (see Judgment 3207, consideration 6). These new claims must therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 960, 1768, 2996, 3207
Keywords:
application for execution; new claim; rejoinder;
Consideration 4
Extract:
It should be recalled that the Tribunal’s judgments, which according to Article VI of its Statute are “final and without appeal” and which have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, consideration 12, and 3152, consideration 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, consideration 6, and 3635, consideration 4). The parties must work together in good faith to execute the judgment (see, for example, Judgments 2684, consideration 6, and 3823, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3823
Keywords:
application for execution; good faith; res judicata;
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871
Keywords:
application for execution; complaint allowed; reinstatement;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
