|
|
 |
|
|
Inadmissible grounds for review (13, 9, 11, 17, 567, 757,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Inadmissible grounds for review
Total judgments found: 52
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4782
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants filed an application review of Judgment 4484.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Regarding the principles which govern an application for the review of a judgment, the Tribunal case law states 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. 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, Judgment 4736, consideration 4, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4736
Keywords:
grounds; inadmissible grounds for review;
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.
Considerations 6 & 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the Tribunal came to the wrong conclusion in considering that the decision which was impugned in her fourth complaint was not a final one challengeable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute. She asserts that the Tribunal relied on wrong legal provisions, made a poor interpretation of the wording of the decision in question, omitted to consider that she had lodged a prior request for review and did not take into consideration IOM’s refusal to follow the procedures established for the internal appeal process.
By those arguments, the complainant is in fact simply alleging that the Tribunal incorrectly appraised the facts in question. Such arguments do not constitute admissible grounds for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 5, and 3983, consideration 6).
[...]
[T]he omission to rule on a plea is not an admissible ground for review [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3983, 4440
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Consideration 7
Extract:
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
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4705
136th Session, 2023
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4274.
Considerations 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15
Extract:
The Tribunal’s consistent precedent has it that, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry res judicata authority. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds therefor are a 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 4338, consideration 2, 3897, consideration 3, 3815, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, 3452, consideration 2, and 3001, consideration 2).
[...]
It should [...] be noted that the alleged error was not likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case, as required by the aforementioned case law in order to establish a ground for review.
[T]he inadequacy of the reasons given for a judgment is not in any event one of the grounds for review recognised in the case law, an exhaustive list of which has been provided [...].
[T]he complainant is in fact seeking to use this argument to challenge the Tribunal’s interpretation of his written submissions, which cannot be properly challenged in an application for review [...].
[T]he Tribunal made a legal assessment which is plainly not open to challenge in an application for review.
[T]he complainant’s application for review is, for the main part, merely an attempt to re-litigate matters that were conclusively decided by the Tribunal in Judgment 4274 and must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3719, 3815, 3897, 4274, 4338
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4580
135th Session, 2023
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainants criticise the Director for having considered in his decisions of 9 July 2021 that their appeals were irreceivable because they were in his view time-barred. They submit that the decisions involved an error of law on that point.
It is true that this particular reason for rejecting the complainants’ claims – namely, that the disputed increase in contributions was simply part of the ongoing implementation of the aforementioned CIPM decision of 14 December 2016, and the decision in 2018 dismissing the complainants’ appeals against a previous increase in contributions resulting from the same reform was final – is debatable. However, the Tribunal notes that the decisions of 9 July 2021 were also based on the Director’s finding that the complainants’ appeals were unfounded. That second reason for dismissal plainly suffices of itself, and the possible flaw tainting the first reason therefore has no bearing on the lawfulness of those decisions in any event (see, for example, Judgment 4507, consideration 7). The complainants’ plea is therefore irrelevant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4507
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4569
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 4440.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant simply challenges the legal assessments made by the Tribunal in the two judgments in question, as he has already done in his application for review of Judgment 4370. However, these may not be challenged in an application for review (see Judgment 4440, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4370, 4440
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the Tribunal omitted to rule on three of the claims made in his application for review of Judgment 4370 and on the three claims to which he drew particular attention in his first complaint. However, here the complainant is in fact referring to pleas that he entered in his submissions and not to claims. [A]n omission to rule on a plea does not, in any event, constitute a receivable ground for review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4370
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a plea;
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 4
Extract:
[L]es appréciations d’ordre juridique que le Tribunal porte dans un jugement ne sauraient être utilement critiquées dans le cadre d’un recours en révision (voir le jugement 3984, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
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 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 4
Extract:
The complainant contends, as a second ground for review, that the Tribunal committed a material error. He submits that it made a mistaken finding of fact involving an error of judgement [...]. [T]his is [...] an inadmissible ground for review, as it essentially seeks to call into question the Tribunal’s exercise of judgement in assessing the evidence. [S]uch a plea affords no grounds for review.
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible 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 5
Extract:
The complainant [...] argues that the Tribunal committed a material error when it concluded [...] that he had not provided cogent evidence that the decisions to abolish his post and terminate his service were taken in breach of his right to equal treatment. This, however, is an inadmissible ground for review as the arguments and the evidence which the complainant presents to support it merely invite the Tribunal to reconsider its finding on this issue on the ground that it has, in effect, misinterpreted the facts.
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; material error;
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;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he plea of a mistake of law is not an admissible ground for review (see Judgment 1529, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1529
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
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 3899
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3882.
Consideration 5
Extract:
It is determined that the grounds of review proffered by the complainant do not come within the limited grounds for reviewing a judgment as, essentially, he merely disagrees with the Tribunal’s interpretation of the facts and argues that it committed a mistake of law, neither of which constitute grounds for review under the Tribunal’s case law (see Judgment 3478, considerations 3, 4 and 6, Judgment 1529, considerations 7 and 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1529, 3478
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 3897
125th Session, 2018
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3851.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3851
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; complaint dismissed; inadmissible grounds for review;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
