Exception (113,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Exception
Total judgments found: 212
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 752
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Though [the complainant] did rely on facts of which he had been unaware at the outset, there was no new time limit on that account, the time limit in the Service Regulations being objectively determined and unqualified. Any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the stability of the parties' position in law, which is the purpose and indeed the whole point of a time limit. The only exception is where the organisation has misled the complainant or concealed some paper from him so as to do him harm, in breach of the good faith which should govern administration. But the condition is not fulfilled here."
Keywords:
exception; general principle; good faith; internal appeal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 738
58th Session, 1986
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
At the end of a correspondence with the office of the Director-General, the complainant wrote that he would assume that no appeal lay against the Director-General's decision, unless the organisation informed him that this was not the case. The Tribunal holds that as the holder of a Ph.D. in law and head of finance and legal affairs, the complainant should know that the Director-General has no power to absolve an official from his obligation to exhaust the means of redress open to him.
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 730
58th Session, 1986
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In the present case the Tribunal, having found that in all the circumstances the complainant exercised due diligence in the pursuit of his remedies and consequently that his failure to file a complaint within the prescribed period was caused solely by the organization's breach of obligation to render the necessary assistance, concludes that the delay does not render the complaint irreceivable."
Keywords:
administrative delay; complaint; exception; negligence; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 666
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"No one may plead breach of the principle of equality on the grounds that he has not received a benefit unlawfully conferred on others. [The complainant] is [...] mistaken in alleging that such breach entitles him to payment of an allowance which was wrongly paid to others."
Keywords:
equal treatment; exception; flaw; general principle;
Judgment 664
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Service Regulations provide for the date on which an appointment takes effect not to be prior to the date on which the official takes up his duties except in case of force majeure. This is "a corollary of the general rule that a unilateral act may not be retroactive." The organisation held "the belief that one term of the contract which governed relations between the two sides had proved unenforceable because of an incident beyond its control." The complainant, who had been injured in an accident, was not fit to report for duty on the date she was due to start; there was not force majeure.
Keywords:
appointment; contract; date; exception; force majeure; professional accident;
Judgment 649
55th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"A judgment carries the force of res judicata from the date on which it is handed down. Though it is subject to review thereafter, the Tribunal will review it only in exceptional circumstances. Some pleas in support of an application for review, such as misappraisal of evidence, are inadmissible. Others, such as material error or the discovery of new facts, are not; but for the application to succeed they must be such as to affect the decision."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; exception; judgment of the tribunal; misinterpretation of the facts; res judicata;
Judgment 647
55th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Although time limits are essential to sound administration, the organisation must not use them in breach of the complainant's good faith."
Keywords:
exception; good faith; internal appeal; purpose; time limit;
Judgment 622
53rd Session, 1984
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal hears complaints challenging decisions which are individual acts, not complaints directed against abstract rules of general purport. That its competence is so restricted is evident in particular from Article VIII of its Statute". The Tribunal will rule on the validity of a general and abstract rule "only by way of exception, viz. when hearing a complaint which challenges an actual decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; exception; general decision; iloat statute; provision;
Judgment 619
53rd Session, 1984
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"By virtue of Article V of its Statute the Tribunal decides in each case whether oral proceedings shall be public or in camera. But its practice is to order such proceedings only in exceptional circumstances where evidence from the parties or witnesses may help in resolving the issues."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE V OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
exception; oral proceedings; purpose;
Judgment 614
53rd Session, 1984
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"There are three hypotheses. The first is that the complainant was treated unlawfully, and if so the Tribunal need only declare that he was and need not rule on the allegation of unequal treatment. The second is that the complainant was treated lawfully and the other staff member unlawfully. In that case the complainant may not rely on unlawful treatment which conferred benefit on the other staff member; equality in law does not mean equality in the breach of it. The third hypothesis is that both of them were treated lawfully. If there was inequality in the treatment they received it arose in circumstances which allowed the exercise of discretion and in which the Tribunal has no power of review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 564, 565
Keywords:
equal treatment; exception; flaw; general principle;
Judgment 612
53rd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's submission of an internal appeal was time-barred; for not having correctly followed the internal procedure, her complaint is irreceivable. The discovery of an allegedly unlawful decision does not affect the time limit for internal appeal. The only exception is where the organisation has misled the complainant in breach of good faith.
Keywords:
consequence; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 610
53rd Session, 1984
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"An application for review is an exceptional procedure and is admissible only in strictly defined circumstances, for example where specific facts have been disregarded or so-called 'new' facts discovered. [...] Although such omission enables the Tribunal to review its decision, it will not necessarily do so. As it has said many times, it will review a judgment only in quite exceptional circumstances".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 446
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As [the Tribunal] has said many times, it will review a judgment only in quite exceptional circumstances: not only are the admissible pleas for review severely limited but what is required is the finding of an exceptional fact, such as an oversight or some fortuitous circumstance, warranting derogation from the general rule of res judicata in Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OFTHE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 446
Keywords:
application for review; exception; res judicata;
Judgment 603
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant's "later discovery that the administration's decision might have been unlawful does not affect the time limit, which is an objective matter of fact and starts on the date on which the impugned decision was notified. Any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the stability of the parties' position in law, which is the purpose and indeed the whole point of setting a time limit. The only exception is where the organisation has misled the complainant and is therefore in breach of good faith."
Keywords:
consequence; date of notification; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 602
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Vide Judgment 603, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 603
Keywords:
consequence; date of notification; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 595
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The purpose of the procedural rules the Tribunal applies is to enable the parties not only to submit full pleadings but also to hold an exchange of briefs in which they enjoy complete freedom of speech. [...] As a rule the Tribunal allows each side to file no more than two briefs and closes the written proceedings after the defendant has filed the surrejoinder. only in exceptional cases does it admit further material."
Keywords:
additional written submissions; closure of written proceedings; exception; procedure before the tribunal; submissions;
Judgment 593
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court provide for review of the Tribunal's judgments. Although an application for review may nevertheless be entertained, only certain pleas will be admitted. In particular, an alleged mistake of law affords no grounds for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata."
Keywords:
application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law; no provision;
Judgment 588
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Because the rule that the internal means of redress must be exhausted, the complainant incurs the risk of a time bar if no definite time limits are set for filing the internal appeal. But where a complainant, in strict observance of the time limits, has done his utmost to secure a decision and the appeals body has nevertheless failed to report, it is only just to allow an exception to the rule."
Keywords:
exception; failure to answer claim; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 570
51st Session, 1983
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8(3)
Extract:
"It is useless to present an application which in substance is inviting the Tribunal to have second thoughts. If it can have second thoughts, it can also have third and fourth thoughts and there can be no finality. To displace the principle of finality, the applicant must show the exceptional case in which insistence upon it would be unjust."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508
Keywords:
application for review; exception; res judicata;
Consideration 8(3)
Extract:
"To displace the principle of finality, the applicant must show the exceptional case in which insistence upon it would be unjust. Such is the case of a 'new' fact which the applicant could not reasonably be expected to have discovered in time. Such also is the case of a 'slip' where, as it is sometimes put, 'even homer nods'. Such cases are likely to be very rare and it is likely also that they can be presented without any elaborate argument."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508
Keywords:
application for review; exception; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; material error; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 565
51st Session, 1983
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(A)
Extract:
According to the Staff Regulations, decisions taken by the Director-General himself are not subject to the complaint procedure. "The performance report referred to in [the complainant's claim] was approved by the Director-General and so he accepted responsibility for it. The complainant was therefore entitled to take the view that he need not address a complaint to the Director-General before submitting [his claim] to the Tribunal. [...] Article VII(1) of the Statute constitutes no bar to a complainant who [...] rightly concluded that he was not required to follow one of the internal appeal procedures."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
decision; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; performance report; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 550
50th Session, 1983
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Friction, in greater or lesser degree, is the inevitable adjunct of everyday life and to award restitution for every sort of emotional distress would be to invite ceaseless litigation. Only exceptional circumstances warrant compensation for such distress, and there are none in this case."
Keywords:
exception; moral injury;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
