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 1353
77th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
See Judgments 442 and 1309.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1309
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1348
77th Session, 1994
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant "has not pleaded any of the grounds on which an application for review will be entertained and which are set out, for example, in Judgments 442 [...] and 704 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 1309
76th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Organization is seeking to adduce additional evidence, not of new facts, but of circumstances which the Organization could and should, if it so wished, have relied on in its pleadings on the original case." The plea is inadmissible.
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgments 442 and 704, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application filed by the organisation; application for review; case law; exception; general principle; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; organisation; res judicata;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The defendant Organization is seeking review of a judgment on the grounds that the Tribunal's interpretation of one of UNESCO's rules overlooked well-established practice. The Tribunal interpreted that provision as it saw fit. "What the Organization is seeking is review on the grounds of an alleged mistake of law, and that is not an admissible plea for review."
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; practice;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In sum, according to the principles that the Tribunal consistently abides by in ruling on [applications for review], UNESCO's allegations do not amount to admissible pleas for review [...] The Tribunal therefore summarily dismisses the Organization's application as being clearly irreceivable within the meaning of Article 8(3) of the rules of court."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 8(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; summary procedure;
Judgment 1295
75th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An application for review of a judgment obviously may not afford an opportunity for making new claims. The Tribunal therefore declines to entertain claims (2), (3) and (7) of the present application because they are new."
Keywords:
application for review; new claim;
Judgment 1294
75th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has often said, only in exceptional circumstances will it entertain an application for review. There are several pleas in favour of review that it will not admit. They are an alleged mistake of law, an alleged mistake in the appraisal of the facts, failure to admit evidence and absence of comment on the parties' pleas. "Other pleas in favour of review may be admitted if they are such as to affect the Tribunal's decision. They include an omission to take account of essential facts; a material error...; an omission to rule on a claim; and the emergence of a so-called 'new' fact, i.e. a fact that the complainant discovered too late to be able to cite in the original proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgment 442, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
application for review; case law; inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a plea;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"To accuse the Tribunal of misconstruing a provision of the [FAO] Manual is to charge it with a mistake of law. The plea is not an admissible one in an application for review."
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 1255
75th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Judgments are 'final and without appeal' according to Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal and they carry the authority of res judicata. The Tribunal will therefore entertain an application for review only in quite exceptional circumstances. As it has stated many times, and in detail in Judgment 442 [...], the admissible grounds for review of a judgment are strictly limited: they are failure to take account of some material fact, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new essential fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the applicant's plea must be such as to affect the original ruling."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; iloat statute; res judicata;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The grounds which are not admissible for an application for review are an alleged mistake of law, misinterpretation of the facts, failure to admit evidence and omission to comment on a plea."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The complainants dispute the Tribunal's finding in Judgment 1190, under 15, that no breach of the methodology which they were relying on had caused them any injury. [...] Since Judgment 1190 therefore shows a mistake of fact, it is subject to review in that respect".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1190
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; mistake of fact; res judicata;
Judgment 1253
75th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant is seeking the review of a judgment in which the Tribunal dismissed a prior application for review. "He is yet again seeking the rehearing of his claims, besides adding a fresh one to after-service medical insurance coverage. He puts forward no admissible grounds whatever for review of Judgment 1027 and his application for review must therefore be rejected in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in Article 8(3) of the Rules of court."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 8(3) OF THE RULES
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1027
Keywords:
application for review; new claim; summary procedure;
Judgment 1252
75th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal's rulings "have the force of res judicata and may not ordinarily be challenged. only in exceptional circumstances will they be subject to review, on the grounds of failure to take account of some essential fact, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the later discovery of some essential fact that the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; res judicata;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant is seeking the review of a judgment which already refused to review the original ruling. "The complainant does no more than put forward again the same arguments as those that supported her first application, which Judgment 1165 dismissed. She cites no essential fact that she was unable to rely on in her original complaint. In sum her application offers no admissible grounds whatever for review [...], is 'clearly irreceivable' within the meaning of Article 8(3) of the Rules of Court, and must therefore be dismissed in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in that article."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 8(3) OF THE RULES
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1165
Keywords:
application for review; summary procedure;
Judgment 1240
74th Session, 1993
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant objects to the Tribunal's decision in an interlocutory order to dismiss his claims in part. He alleges that "the circumstances of the case prevented him from pleading his case in full. He makes out that the Tribunal cannot have given due account to his pleas and may have committed an error of judgment. Those comments are not admissible. The complainant was given, in keeping with the Rules of Court, the opportunity of stating his views in full [...] so there is no basis for his challenging the authority of the interlocutory order insofar as it made a final ruling on most of his claims."
Keywords:
application for review; interlocutory order; res judicata;
Judgment 1209
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has often said - for example in Judgments 442 [...] and 1178 [...] - neither its Statute nor the Rules of Court provide for review of its rulings. Although it will nevertheless entertain an application for review, only on exceptional grounds will it do so because it will thereby be derogating from the res judicata rule. Some pleas in favour of review are admissible and some are not."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1178
Keywords:
application for review; case law; iloat statute; res judicata;
Judgment 1178
73rd Session, 1992
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's rulings carry the authority of res judicata. An application for review will succeed only in exceptional cases and several pleas in favour of review will not be entertained at all. They include an alleged mistake of law [...] other pleas in favour of review may be entertained if they are such as to affect the ruling. they include an omission to take account of particular facts".
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1174
73rd Session, 1992
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As the Tribunal said in Judgment 1036, only in exceptional circumstances will it entertain an application for review since to allow one is to derogate from the res judicata rule. What is more, the complainant may not submit the same pleas more than once: the Tribunal will entertain in the context of her present application only the pleas that she was unable to put forward in support of the earlier one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1036
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; res judicata;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant submits that a "new fact [...] would have become obvious had the Tribunal allowed her application for hearings since evidence from the witnesses she wanted to call would have been more telling than her own written submissions. There is nothing in her application to suggest that such evidence would have established a new fact of the kind the case law requires if review of the original judgment was to be warranted. And in any event failure to admit evidence does not afford admissible grounds for review".
Keywords:
application for review; failure to admit evidence; oral proceedings;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"What [the complainant] is alleging is a mistake of law, and that does not afford admissible grounds for review. If it did, a party who was dissatisfied with a ruling might go on challenging it in defiance of the res judicata rule."
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1165
73rd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has time and again affirmed, its judgments have the force of res judicata and may not ordinarily be challenged. Only in exceptional cases will they be subject to review, on the grounds of failure to take account of essential facts, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the discovery of an essential fact the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1060
70th Session, 1991
African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant has four pleas in support of his application for review of Judgment 1003: a material error, his discovery of new facts, the disregard of particular facts and failure to rule on his claims. Consideration of his pleas led the Tribunal to conclude that his application was an idle attempt at challenging a ruling that has the authority of res judicata.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1003
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 1059
70th Session, 1991
African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3, Summary
Extract:
The complainant relies on provisions in the Convention on the establishment of the organisation's component bodies which he regards as new facts that warrant the review of Judgment 1002. Those provisions can scarcely be treated as new facts since the complainant obviously did not learn about them after the Tribunal's ruling.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1002
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 1057
70th Session, 1991
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
In seeking review of Judgment 999, the complainant contends that in making him an award of 500 United States dollars in damages on account of the breach of due process in the internal appeal proceedings the Tribunal ignored his claim for costs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999
Keywords:
application for review;
Judgment 1036
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant says that the Tribunal did not rule on her claim to damages for 'psychological' injury. The case law recognises no special head of damages of that kind: damages may be either for material or for moral injury." Judgment 917 having expressly rejected such a claim, the complainant's allegation is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 917
Keywords:
application for review; omission to rule on a claim;
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;
Consideration 7, Summary
Extract:
The complainant argues that material errors "misled the Tribunal". In Judgment 917 the Tribunal held that she had no right in law to a professional category post. She contends that FAO Rules provide for making good the lack of a university degree with proper experience and that she did qualify in law for such a post. But that is an alleged mistake of law, and not of fact; as such it does not constitute admissible grounds for review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 917
Keywords:
application for review; material error; mistake of law;
Judgment 980
66th Session, 1989
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments carry the authority of res judicata and it will review them only in exceptional cases. It will not review on the grounds of an alleged mistake of law or misappraisal of the facts or because it had failed to comment on all the pleas submitted by the parties. A review may be permitted where there was an omission of fact involving no exercise of judgment - as distinct from a mistaken appraisal of the facts - an omission to rule on a claim or the discovery of a 'new' fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
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 979
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant's application "merely alleges misinterpretation of the EPO's Service Regulations and guidelines. That is an assertion of error of law which, according to the long-established case-law, does not constitute valid grounds for review".
Keywords:
application for review; interpretation; mistake of law;
Judgment 950
65th Session, 1988
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"To justify review, there must be evidence of some exceptional circumstance, such as accident or inadvertence, cogent enough to displace the principle of finality of judgment."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception; res judicata;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
