|
|
 |
|
|
Same purpose (97,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Same purpose
Total judgments found: 16
Judgment 4778
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was promoted from grade G.6 to grade P.3, challenges what he regards as the withdrawal of the decision to take his family allowance into account when determining his step in his new grade P.3.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The Tribunal has already recalled that, in accordance with a recognised general principle of law, a person cannot submit the same matter for decision in two separate proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 4530, consideration 7, 4085, consideration 7, 3291, consideration 6, and 2742, consideration 16).
In the present case, the object of the dispute in the complainant’s third complaint is the remuneration to which he contends he is entitled [...]. The Tribunal notes that this object is identical, to that extent, to one of the claims specifically mentioned in his second complaint [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 3291, 4085, 4530
Keywords:
duplication of proceedings; parallel proceedings; same purpose;
Judgment 3428
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complaints have the same basic purpose, essentially raise the same issues of receivability and are based on similar facts. Moreover, they are closely interconnected in that some of them refer to the submissions in the others. Despite the reservation expressed in this regard by the defendant, the Tribunal therefore finds it appropriate to join them in order that they may form the subject of a single judgment (see Judgment 3291, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291
Keywords:
joinder; same purpose;
Judgment 3291
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismisses fifty-six similar complaints on the grounds that they are directed against general and not individual decisions.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 77,80, 81 and 83 of the Service Regulations; Circular No. 82; Decisions CA/D 32/08, 27/08, 14/08, 13/09, 28/09, 22/09, 7/10
Keywords:
advisory opinion; competence; complaint dismissed; decision; effect; general decision; general principle; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; joinder; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; same cause of action; same purpose;
Judgment 2993
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Setting up of a pension fund to replace existing pension scheme and introduction of implementing measures.
"[T]he principle of '[r]es judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard'. The principle applies when the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case (see Judgments 1216, under 3, and 1263, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 1263, 2316
Keywords:
binding character; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Judgment 2316
96th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard. It extends to bar proceedings on an issue that must necessarily have been determined in the earlier proceeding even if that precise issue was not then in dispute. In such a case, the question whether res judicata applies will ordinarily be answered by ascertaining whether one or other of the parties seeks to challenge or controvert some aspect of the actual decision reached in the earlier case."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; definition; enforcement; finality of judgment; general principle; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same purpose; settlement out of court; staff member's duties; tribunal;
Judgment 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."
Keywords:
binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;
Judgment 2011
90th Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"According to the case law of the Tribunal, for a decision, taken after an initial decision has been made, to be considered as a new decision (setting off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal) the following conditions are to be met. The new decision must alter the previous decision and not be identical in substance, or at least must provide further justification, and must relate to different issues from the previous one or be based on new grounds (see Judgments 660 [...] and 759 [...]). It must not be a mere confirmation of the original decision (see Judgment 1304 [...]). The fact that discussions take place after a final decision is reached does not mean that the organization has taken a new and final decision. A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits (see Judgment 586 [...]), nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken (see Judgment 1528 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 586, 660, 759, 1304, 1528
Keywords:
case law; condition; confirmatory decision; cumulative decisions; decision; definition; formal requirements; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; same purpose; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1462
79th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The intervener offers no factual evidence to show that her duties entitled her to the allowance. She merely says that she is in the same position as two of the complainants. "She neither shows nor even seeks to show that she is in the same position in fact and in law as others who are claiming the allowance in complaints to the Tribunal. So her application is [...] irreceivable."
Keywords:
condition; identical claims; identical facts; intervention; receivability of the complaint; same purpose;
Judgment 1461
79th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Since the two complaints raise the same issues of fact and law and seek the same redress, they are therefore joined to form the subject of a single judgment."
Keywords:
complaint; identical claims; identical facts; joinder; same purpose;
Judgment 1423
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"By his pointless repetition of arguments on claims which the Tribunal has rejected in previous complaints, the complainant has refused to accept that the decisions of the Tribunal are res judicata. His conduct in reverting to issues which the Tribunal has already ruled on amounts to an abuse of process."
Keywords:
identical claims; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same parties; same purpose; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1263
75th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The res judicata rule will apply where the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case."
Keywords:
definition; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Identity of purpose means that what the complainant is seeking is what he would have obtained had his earlier suit succeeded. And it is not the actual working of the decision that matters but the complainant's intent."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; criteria; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same purpose;
Judgment 1216
74th Session, 1993
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"There are three conditions for sustaining [irreceivability under the res judicata rule]: the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action must be the same as in the earlier case."
Keywords:
case law; definition; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Identity of purpose means that what the complainant is seeking is what he would have obtained had his earlier suit succeeded. The criterion is not the purport of the decision but the complainant's true intention."
Keywords:
definition; res judicata; same purpose;
Judgment 879
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
"The res judicata rule applies to an intervener because by the very act of intervening he espouses the complainant's case. It is true that there are some arguments which he puts forward again and which those judgments did not address. But that does not mean that the conditions [...] for applying the res judicata rule are not met: between this case and the earlier ones there is identity in the parties, in the purpose of the suit and in the cause of action."
Keywords:
consequence; effect; intervention; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Judgment 759
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"With one exception any decision by the EPO may be challenged before the Tribunal as is prescribed in its Statute. The exception is a decision that merely confirms or reproduces the original one and is not based on any further inquiry or any new grounds. But there will be confirmation only if the later decision is identical in substance to the original one."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; definition; receivability of the complaint; same purpose;
Judgment 574
51st Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The organisation pleads that the complaint fails by the doctrine of res judicata, in view of the fact that the complainant was an intervener in Judgment No. 365. The plea was dismissed on the grounds that the substance of the two claims was not the same: the first claim challenged a measure which had the force of a rule whereas the second concerned a decision of an individual nature. The case is referred back to the President for a new decision. The Tribunal stressed that the organisation should not have based its reply solely on res judicata, refraining from arguing the merits without having been granted permission to do so by the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 365
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; further submissions on the merits; general decision; individual decision; intervention; reply confined to receivability; res judicata; same purpose;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Where a plea of res judicata "is upheld the effect is to preclude a further ruling on claims identical in substance to claims on which the Tribunal has already passed judgment. Where the earlier complaint was dismissed the doctrine of res judicata will apply if three conditions are fulfilled": that the parties must be the same, that the substance of the claim should be the same and that the cause of action should be the same.
Keywords:
condition; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Judgment 209
30th Session, 1973
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The present claim is entirely different in origin and purpose from the complaints settled by [...] Judgement [No. 61]. It follows that [the complainant] cannot properly rely on the decision given in that judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61
Keywords:
res judicata; same cause of action; same purpose;
|
|
|
|
|
