|
|
 |
|
|
Admissible grounds for review (8, 14, 15, 16, 683, 802,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Admissible grounds for review
Total judgments found: 69
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4908
138th Session, 2024
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 4674.
Considerations 4-7
Extract:
It is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As indicated in Article 6, paragraph 5, of the Rules of the Tribunal, the only admissible grounds therefor are failure to take account of material facts, a material error (namely, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, which thus differs from misinterpretation of the facts), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 4414, consideration 2, 3897, consideration 3, 3719, consideration 4, 3634, consideration 4, 3473, consideration 3, 3452, consideration 2, and 3001, consideration 2).
On the form that she submitted with her application, the complainant indicates that she seeks a review of Judgment 4674 on two grounds, namely, failure to take account of material facts and omission to rule on a claim. However, her submissions do not support a conclusion that the judgment should be reviewed on either of these grounds.
It is true that in Judgment 4674 the Tribunal did not address the complainant’s pleas disputing, and the pleas of PAHO asserting, that she engaged in all or most of the conduct on which the charges against her were based and this was established beyond reasonable doubt. However, as was clearly stated in consideration 6 of the judgment, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to do so. According to the case law cited above, omission to rule on an argument does not afford grounds for review. This is because the Tribunal would otherwise be required to state its position expressly on all pleas, even if they were plainly of no relevance to the case (see Judgments 4440, consideration 7, 3478, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein).
To the extent that the application is based on an alleged failure to rule on a claim, suffice it to note that in Judgment 4674 the Tribunal dealt specifically with each of the claims for relief formulated by the complainant, even though some were rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3478, 3634, 3719, 3897, 4414, 4440, 4674
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4906
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for review of Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
In support of his applications, the complainant submits that Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732 are flawed by material errors and that the Tribunal failed to take account of material facts. Furthermore, he relies on the discovery of a new fact.
Firstly, in respect of the material errors, the complainant submits that these consist of “incorrect findings of material facts”,“incorrect findings of fact” and “legally invalid and incorrect” findings of fact, which formed the bases for the decisions in Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732. However, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s objections do not relate to material errors but are solely an attempt to challenge the view taken by it in the judgments in question. As it is, 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, 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584, 4732
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant next submits that, when it rendered Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732, the Tribunal failed to take account of material facts. However, it is plain from the complainant’s arguments on this point that he is in fact seeking to argue that the Tribunal incorrectly appraised the facts in question. Such an argument does not afford an admissible ground for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 5, and 3983, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3983, 4440, 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584, 4732
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; appraisal of facts; inadmissible grounds for review;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Lastly, the complainant relies on an allegedly new fact. Though the existence 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, 3561, consideration 5, and 1545, consideration 5). In this case, the Tribunal fails to see, in any event, how the factual details provided by the complainant would have led it to decide differently on the claims that were submitted to it in the complaints leading to Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1545, 3561, 4440, 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584, 4732
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; new fact;
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 4736
136th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4571.
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;
Judgment 4442
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4329.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are “final and without appeal” and have res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The 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 (see Judgment 3899, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3899
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4440
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4370.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Le Tribunal a déclaré ce qui suit, par exemple dans les jugements 3815, au considérant 4, et 3899, au considérant 3:
«[L]es jugements [du Tribunal] sont, conformément à l’article VI de son Statut, “définitifs et sans appel” et ont l’autorité de la chose jugée. Ils ne peuvent donc faire l’objet d’une révision que dans des cas exceptionnels et pour des motifs strictement limités. Ainsi que l’ont notamment rappelé les jugements 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 et 2736, les seuls motifs susceptibles d’être admis à ce titre sont l’omission de tenir compte de faits déterminés, l’erreur matérielle n’impliquant pas un jugement de valeur, l’omission de statuer sur une conclusion ou la découverte de faits nouveaux que le requérant n’était pas en mesure d’invoquer à temps dans la première procédure. De plus, ces motifs doivent être tels qu’ils aient été de nature à exercer une influence sur le sort de la cause. En revanche, l’erreur de droit, l’omission d’administrer une preuve, la fausse appréciation des faits ou l’omission de statuer sur un moyen ne sont pas des motifs de révision. (Voir, par exemple, les jugements 3001, au considérant 2, 3452, au considérant 2, et 3473, au considérant 3.)»
(Voir aussi le jugement 4327, au considérant 3.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3815, 3899, 4327
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Si l’existence d’un fait nouveau peut certes servir de base à un recours en révision, ce fait doit être antérieur au jugement et doit être tel qu’il eût été de nature à avoir une influence sur celui-ci si le Tribunal en avait eu connaissance (voir le jugement 1545, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1545
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; new fact;
Judgment 4436
132nd Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4221.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The case law states that, though the discovery of a new fact may afford grounds for review, the fact must date from before the material judgment and be such that it would have affected the ruling had the Tribunal known of it in time (see Judgment 1545, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1545
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; new fact;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Pursuant to Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal, judgments shall be final and without appeal but the Tribunal may nevertheless consider applications for review. Consistent precedent has it that a judgment of the Tribunal may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The rationale for this was stated, for example, in Judgment 3899, consideration 3, which reiterates the terms of Judgment 3815, consideration 4, as follows:
“Consistent precedent has it that, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are ‘final and without appeal’ and have res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated, for example, in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the 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 (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3815, 3899
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4414
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants filed applications for review of Judgment 4195.
Consideration 2
Extract:
It is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds therefor are failure to take account of material facts, a material error (in other words, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, which thus differs from misinterpretation of the facts), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4327
130th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for review of Judgment 4172.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The arguments relied on by the complainant in his application for review, and the evidence which he presents to support them, merely invite the Tribunal to reconsider its findings on these issues on the grounds that it has, in effect, misinterpreted the facts and/or misapplied the law. Although the complainant attempts to base its application for review on the alleged Tribunal’s failure to take into account material facts, his submissions essentially seek to call into question the Tribunal’s exercise of judgement in assessing the evidence. The grounds for review advanced by the complainant are simply an attempt to re-litigate matters that have already been decided. As noted above, such pleas afford no grounds for review.
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; failure to take account of material facts; inadmissible grounds for review;
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4199, consideration 2, its judgments may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The rationale for this was stated, for example, in Judgments 3815, consideration 4, and 3899, consideration 3, as follows:
“[P]ursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are ‘final and without appeal’ and have res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated, for example, in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the 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 (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3815, 3899, 4199
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4199
128th Session, 2019
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4022.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that a judgment of the Tribunal may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The rationale for this was stated, for example, in Judgments 3815, consideration 4, and 3899, consideration 3, as follows:
“[P]ursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are ‘final and without appeal’ and have res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated, for example, in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the 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 (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473, 3815, 3899
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review;
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 2
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that a judgment of the Tribunal may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The rationale for this was stated, for example, in Judgment 3899, consideration 3, as follows:
“[P]ursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are ‘final and without appeal’ and have res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated, for example, in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the 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 (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473, 3899
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; summary procedure;
Judgment 4133
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3956.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In his application for review of Judgment 3956, the complainant submits that the Tribunal made a mistake of fact involving no exercise of judgement and failed to take into account particular facts. Referring to Judgment 3819, he points out that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, these are admissible grounds for review. It should be noted that the case law also establishes that, in order to be admissible, such pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgment 3333, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3333, 3819, 3956
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; mistake of fact;
Judgment 4132
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3955.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In his application for review of Judgment 3955, the complainant alleges that particular facts were not taken into account by the Tribunal. Referring to Judgment 3819, he points out that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, failure to take account of particular facts is an admissible ground for review. It should be noted that the case law also establishes that, in order to be admissible, such a plea must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgment 3333, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3333, 3819, 3955
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; failure to take account of material facts;
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.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that, pursuant to Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal, the latter’s judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry the authority of res judicata. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the 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 on which the complainant was unable to rely 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 (see, for example, Judgments 3001, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, and 3473, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4129
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3893.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated, for example, in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the 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 on which the author of the application was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).
The amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal introduced in 2016 in order to recognise the parties’ right to file an application for review has no bearing on the grounds on which such applications may be admitted according to the case law cited above.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
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 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, its judgments, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and carry the authority of res judicata. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The 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 on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Pleas of 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 (see Judgment 3305, under 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3305
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4124
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3998.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, “pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are ‘final and without appeal’ and carry res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated, for example, in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the 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 on which the author of the application was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review [...]” (see Judgment 3984, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3984
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4122
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4016.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, its judgments, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and carry the authority of res judicata. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The 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 on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Pleas of 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 (see Judgment 3305, under 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3305
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 3984
126th Session, 2018
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The ACP Group has filed an application for review and interpretation of Judgment 3845.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated, for example, in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the 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 on which the author of the application was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).
The amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal introduced in 2016 in order to recognise the parties’ right to file an application for review has no bearing on the grounds on which such applications may be admitted according to the case law cited above. [...]
However, in order to determine these questions of competence and receivability, the Tribunal made legal assessments which were duly explained in the reasoning of the judgment and which may not be challenged in an application for review. Thus, despite the misleading way in which they are presented, the pleas raised by the ACP Group cannot be construed as relating to material errors, but solely as an attempt to challenge the Tribunal’s informed rulings on these issues.
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 3983
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for review of Judgments 3508, 3628, 3710, 3711, 3712, 3778, 3779 and 3780.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant is simply expressing his disagreement with the Tribunal’s assessment of the facts and evidence. In so doing, he does not raise any admissible ground for review.
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; appraisal of facts;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he complainant is in effect alleging that the Tribunal made an incorrect assessment of the facts. Such a plea does not constitute an admissible ground for review.
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; appraisal of facts;
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he plea that the Tribunal misinterpreted the evidence in the file does not constitute an admissible ground for review.
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
