|
|
 |
|
|
Appraisal of facts (9,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Appraisal of facts
Total judgments found: 11
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.
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;
Judgment 4035
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses her former supervisor of moral harassment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Neither can the Tribunal accept the complainant’s argument of “arrogation by the Administration of medical expertise”, which relates to the statement made by the Administration in the reply brief that it submitted to the Appeals Board that she suffered from a “feeling of persecution”. Indeed, it cannot be inferred from this statement, as the complainant does, that the Organization thus intended to make a medical assessment of her state of health and to insinuate that she suffered from mental health problems.
Keywords:
appraisal of facts; illness;
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;
Judgment 1036
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Whereas an alleged omission to take account of a particular fact is an admissible plea in favour of review, an alleged misappraisal of the facts is not. Another inadmissible ground is an alleged mistake of law. Furthermore, an application based on the admission of new evidence may be entertained provided that the complainant discovered that evidence too late to be able to cite it in the original pleadings and provided that it is relevant."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of facts; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 980
66th Session, 1989
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant is in fact asking the Tribunal to change its mind about its interpretation of the rules. The reasons he puts forward are essentially that its judgment showed misappraisal of the facts and a mistake in law in interpreting the rules and failed to endorse his own interpretation. Those are not admissible grounds for review."
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; inadmissible grounds for review; interpretation; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law;
Judgment 749
59th Session, 1986
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant accuses the Tribunal of having disregarded specific facts. As there is no evidence to support his assertions, the application is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 588, 645, 681
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of facts;
Judgment 649
55th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant is alleging misinterpretation of a statement by a supervisor. That would amount to misappraisal of evidence, and the plea is inadmissible."
Keywords:
appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 593
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not allow review on the grounds of an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts."
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;
Judgment 579
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to its case law ,the Tribunal will not allow review on the grounds of an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts; nor is failure to admit evidence a valid reason for review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 531
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;
Judgment 504
48th Session, 1982
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant alleges that there is a material error in the consideration concerning the classification of a post of Judgment no. 325. The plea fails. "In commenting on the grade of the post [...] the Tribunal chose between conflicting views. It made, not just a finding of fact, but an appraisal of evidence on a matter in dispute, and under the case law such appraisal does not afford grounds for review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 325
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;
Judgment 442
46th Session, 1981
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2 and 8(B)
Extract:
Among inadmissible grounds for review is alleged mistaken appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts. Parties who are dissatisfied with a decision may not question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; definition; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; misinterpretation of the facts; res judicata;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Inadmissible grounds for review include an alleged mistake of law, an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, a failure to admit evidence and the omission to comment on pleas submitted by the parties.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of evidence; appraisal of facts; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
|
|
|
|
|
