Application for review (7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 683, 802, 12, 13, 9, 11, 17, 567, 757, 744, 754, 803, 882,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Application for review
Total judgments found: 172
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 2029
90th Session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considérant 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal will [...] consider whether the Organization's pleas fall within the admissible grounds for review. The FAO submits that in interpreting the rules on the recruitment of professional staff the Tribunal made an error of law which voids Article VIII(3) of the FAO Constitution of all substance and disregards the Director-General's discretionary authority. Such an allegation calls into question the Tribunal's legal reasoning. To allow review of the interpretation of [the] rules [at issue] would render meaningless the principle that the Tribunal's judgments are final and immediately acquire the authority of res judicata. It would also allow its judgments to be questioned systematically by complainants who are dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision."
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 2021
90th Session, 2001
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant alleges that the Tribunal has failed to rule on one of his claims in his previous case. But it was merely a plea and not a claim. "The Tribunal did not need to address that plea if it felt it was unnecessary to do so."
Keywords:
application for review; omission to rule on a claim; omission to rule on a plea;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Lack of impartiality in a tribunal is a serious matter and an allegation of this sort should be neither made nor taken lightly. It is, like any other breach of the principles of natural justice, a proper ground for seeking review of a judgment."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; bias; burden of proof; general principle;
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant contends that the opinion of the President of the Tribunal was tainted with bias since he has the same nationality as a few of the organisation's senior officers. "This is simply unacceptable. International organisations by definition have no nationality and their officers and employees are drawn from citizens of many countries; it is the organisations and not their officers who appear as defendants in cases before the Tribunal and the nationality of the judges who hear those cases is wholly irrelevant."
Keywords:
application for review; bias; nationality; president of the tribunal;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant fears that the opinion of a member of the Tribunal was tainted with bias since he has the same nationality as a few of the organisation's senior officers. "Applications for review are normally heard by the same panel which rendered the original decision; a complainant cannot, by making wholly frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations force one or more members of the panel to recuse themselves."
Keywords:
application for review; bias; general principle; nationality;
Consideration 23
Extract:
"The concerns expressed by the complainant with regard to the fact that [the President of the Tribunal] and [one of the organisation's senior officers] both attended the same school and that [the President] was Director of an institute at which [another senior officer] taught are [...] without merit [...] If his opinion were to be followed, students having attended an institution should be prevented from judging cases in which the names of other students of the same institution appear."
Keywords:
application for review; bias; president of the tribunal;
Judgment 1952
89th Session, 2000
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
"Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal's judgments are final and without appeal and that they carry the authority of res judicata. It is only in quite exceptional circumstances that an application for review, although not provided for in the Statute, can be allowed: the only grounds which may be entertained are failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new facts which the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the proceedings which led to the judgment which the complainant is seeking to reverse. The application for review should also be filed within a reasonable time and the pleas put forward should be of such a nature as to affect the original ruling. [...] In the present case, the Tribunal finds that none of the grounds exist for challenging the ruling already made[: the] application for review was only filed more than one year after the adoption of the judgment that she is challenging [...] The complainant now merely calls into question the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. [A] form, which she says constitutes a new fact, had already been sent to her counsel [...] during the internal appeals procedure. [Finally, the plea] that she was not assisted effectively by her former counsel [...] does not warrant review of the Tribunal's judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1727
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; counsel; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; omission to rule on a claim; reasonable time; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;
Judgment 1825
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments are final and binding. They are not subject to appeal. The Tribunal will not entertain applications for revision or review except in the most unusual circumstances such as fraud or the discovery of conclusive new evidence which could not have been brought forward before. The stability of judicial procedures and the need to bring an end to litigation require that parties must accept the result they obtain even when they are unsatisfied with it. Where both parties have had a full opportunity to present their case and where no new and previously undiscoverable factual element is brought forward the principle of res judicata prevents the reopening and rearguing of cases already decided."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; evidence; finality of judgment; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1824
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. There are two sides to every case and the party who loses will usually believe that the Tribunal committed an error. There must, however, be an end to litigation and the stability of the judicial process requires that final judgments of the kind here at issue be set aside only on limited grounds and for the gravest of reasons."
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; res judicata;
Judgment 1822
86th Session, 1999
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
In Judgment 1656 "[the Tribunal] dismissed the [first] complaint as irreceivable and did not go into the merits. Since the Tribunal made no findings of fact on the merits, [the complainant's] allegations of fact on that score are not material. Nor has she shown any mistaken finding of fact that affects the issue of receivability."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1656
Keywords:
application for review; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 1803
86th Session, 1999
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"There is no rule of procedure which precludes a member of an international tribunal from publishing a distinct opinion on a case before it. There is no flaw on that score."
Keywords:
application for review; dissenting opinion; judgment of the tribunal;
Judgment 1648
83rd Session, 1997
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant's application for review rests on the discovery of an alleged new fact. "Is that indeed a new fact? Or was she not already aware of the substance of the minute [that she alleges the discovery of], and did she not plead accordingly in the original proceedings? The question is immaterial since in any event the minute does not affect the issue in dispute and the discovery of it does not warrant review."
Keywords:
application for review; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 1620
83rd Session, 1997
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Organization submits that its application for review had the effect of suspending the execution of the judgment. The plea is unfounded. Article VI of the Tribunal's Statute states that its judgments are 'final and without appeal'. There is no provision in its Statute or Rules for any stay in the execution of a judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
application for review; execution of judgment; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Judgment 1592
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[The complainant] pleads 'grave breaches' of due process in his [...] complaint. But the only one he cites is the rejection of his application for hearings. As the Tribunal has said time and again - for example in Judgment 442 [...] - failure to hear evidence is not an admissible plea for review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
application for review; failure to admit evidence; oral proceedings; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1545
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has often held, its judgments carry the force of res judicata and are not subject to appeal. Only in exceptional cases may it review them. Application for review is an extraordinary remedy that is not to be mistaken for appeal. Appeal lies only to a court of higher instance that may reconsider the whole case, whereas review, as contemplated in the case law, falls to the Tribunal itself."
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; res judicata;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Though the discovery of a new fact may afford grounds for review, the fact must date from before the material judgment and be such as would have affected the ruling had the Tribunal known of it in time. The facts the complainant alleges are subsequent to [...] the date of [the judgment in question]. They may afford grounds for a new complaint but not for review of that judgment."
Keywords:
application for review; definition; fact subsequent to the judgment; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1529
81st Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"In Judgment 442 [...] and in many later judgments the Tribunal has declared an alleged mistake of law to be an inadmissible plea for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds that the Tribunal's legal reasoning was wrong would be to let anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision question it indefinitely in disregard of the res judicata rule. [...] The application must be summarily dismissed as clearly irreceivable under Article 7 of the Tribunal's Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; iloat statute; mistake of law; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 1507
81st Session, 1996
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent the Tribunal will allow an application for review only in exceptional cases. Its judgments are, as Article VI of its Statute says, 'final and without appeal' and carry the authority of res judicata. Admissible grounds for review are strictly limited: failure to take account of a material fact, an error of fact which involves no exercise of judgment, failure to rule on a claim, and the discovery of a new fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the plea must be such as to affect the original ruling: see Judgment 1255 [...] under 2." Inadmissible pleas for review are a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, a wrong appraisal of the facts and failure to rule on pleas: see, for example, Judgment 442 [...], also under 2."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1255
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of evidence; finality of judgment; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1504
81st Session, 1996
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is not appropriate for [the complainant] to make a counterclaim to damages [for the moral injury allegedly caused to her] in the context of her submissions on an application by the organization for review [...] The claim arises out of a separate cause of action and is one that she should pursue separately."
Keywords:
application for review; claim; counterclaim; moral injury; new claim;
Consideration 9
Extract:
For a plea alleging discovery of a new fact to succeed the fact must be one that the party seeking review "could not reasonably have been expected to discover in time and plead in the original case."
Keywords:
application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 1500
80th Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
In an earlier judgment the Tribunal held a disputed report to be lawful "so the issue is res judicata and not now open to appeal. [The complainant] cannot properly impute 'malice aforethought' to the reporting officer because he cites no fact he could not have relied on in his earlier complaint and which might afford valid grounds for review of [the judgment in question]."
Keywords:
application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1421
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgment 442, considerations 2 and 3
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;
Judgment 1410
78th Session, 1995
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
See Judgment 1409, consideration 7.
Keywords:
application for execution; application for review; organisation; reply;
Judgment 1409
78th Session, 1995
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In the context of its reply to the complainants' application for execution the organization makes its own application for review of the judgment. Its application is refused. It should properly have filed a separate application, not sought review in the context of its reply."
Keywords:
application for execution; application for review;
Judgment 1387
78th Session, 1995
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The present applications mentioned no new facts. "That being so, and having communicated the applications [...] to the defendant for information in accordance with Article 7(1) of its Rules, the Tribunal dismisses them as clearly irreceivable within the meaning of 7(2) and does not order adversarial proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
application for review; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; summary procedure;
Judgment 1377
78th Session, 1995
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant seeks review of a judgment in which the tribunal dismissed his case as time-barred. He alleges the existence of a new fact which would at the time have led the Tribunal to declare his complaint receivable. "The Tribunal rejects as incredible the evidence tendered by the complainant. Accordingly it applies the procedure provided for in Article 7 of its Rules and summarily dismisses the application as clearly devoid of merit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
application for review; evidence; lack of evidence; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; summary procedure;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
