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 948
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The purpose of the present application is to get the Tribunal to change its mind by seeking to refute its reasoning and show the case law it cited to be irrelevant. What he is alleging is a mistake of law, and that does not constitute admissible grounds for review."
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 912
64th Session, 1988
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
"The Tribunal dismissed [the complainant's] first two claims to relief and ruled that consequently the other two failed as well: it therefore ruled on all her claims. But what she is in fact alleging is that the Tribunal failed to rule on her plea that the Administration had not based its decision on the desk audit.
[F]ailure to rule on a plea does not afford admissible grounds for review. But in any event the complainant is mistaken. Implicit in the Tribunal's ruling was a decision that failure by the Administration to base its decision on the desk audit was not unlawful. The Tribunal therefore did not omit to rule on the fourth plea."
Keywords:
application for review; omission to rule on a plea;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"There are several pleas for review which the Tribunal will entertain provided that its judgment was affected, and they include a material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which involves no exercise of judgment [unlike a mistake in appraisal of facts, which involves exercise of judgment]."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; material error;
Judgment 898
64th Session, 1988
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The claims are irreceivable because "they are a pointless attempt to get review of decisions that the Tribunal ruled on in Judgments 732 and 733. [...] [The complainant is] pleading misinterpretation of the text, and that would be a mistake of law, which is not an admissible reason for reviewing a text that carries the authority of res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 732, 733
Keywords:
application for review; interpretation; mistake of law; res judicata; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 860
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"Desirable though it may be that the various bodies that hear disputes in the international civil service take account of each other's rulings, each of them has a legal context of its own and will rule by its own lights on any case before it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 657
Keywords:
applicable law; application for review; case law; effect; european court of justice (ecj); iloat; judgment of the tribunal; law of european communities;
Summary
Extract:
As to identity in the cause of action, Mr [A.] notes that the Tribunal had in part rejected the complainants' plea of breach of good faith on the grounds that they had taken up duty after the new criteria had taken effect. Mr [A.] contends that this reasoning does not apply to him insofar as he had taken up duty before the change in rules. The Tribunal acknowledges that there is on this point a new cause of action; however it holds on the merits that a staff member has no right, save in exceptional cases, to demand that the rules on promotion in force at the time of appointment should never be modified.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 657
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; application for review; appointment; date; effective date; general principle; good faith; practice; promotion; provision; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; terms of appointment;
Judgment 859
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The application is irreceivable because the applicant is seeking, without offering a shred of new evidence, to challenge a decision the Tribunal handed down after letting him have his full say in written proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 785
Keywords:
application for review; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 788
60th Session, 1986
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal has not thus far set a time limit for seeking review of its judgments. In this case, it considers the delay of nine years entirely unreasonable.
Keywords:
application for review; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 749
59th Session, 1986
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant accuses the Tribunal of having disregarded specific facts. As there is no evidence to support his assertions, the application is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 588, 645, 681
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of facts;
Judgment 748
59th Session, 1986
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Whether reinstatement is inadvisable is an issue of law. A mistake of law does not constitute admissible grounds for review, and the Tribunal's decision on the point, even if it was wrong, is not subject to review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 665
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law; reinstatement;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[A] new fact will constitute admissible grounds for an application for review only provided that 1) it would have had some effect on the Tribunal's decision and 2) the applicant was unable, for reasons beyond his control, to rely on it in the original proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 665
Keywords:
application for review; condition; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"As is clear from precedent the absence of a ruling on issues that are not material affords no grounds for review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 665
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 705
57th Session, 1985
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Several pleas are inadmissible as grounds for review, such as allegations of error of law or misappraisal of the evidence. Nor does the failure to hear evidence or to rule on pleas submitted by the parties afford admissible grounds for review. Other pleas may be admissible provided they may have an effect on the Tribunal's decision. Examples are failure to take account of specific facts, material error [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 607
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 704
57th Session, 1985
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments [...] are [...] subject to review on application either by the complainant insofar as he is not satisfied or by the defendant organisation when its decision is set aside or it is ordered to pay damages."
Keywords:
application for review;
Consideration 2
Extract:
See Judgment 705, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 705
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 658
55th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The construction which the Tribunal put on [the provision] is an issue of law. An appraisal of the facts which is based on legal reasoning does not afford grounds for review. In any event the Tribunal's reasoning on the issue did not afford the basis for its decision to dismiss the complaint, as indeed is clear from the inclusion of the words 'en outre' in the authentic text."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 617
Keywords:
application for review; interpretation; mistake of law;
Considerations
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments are subject to review only in exceptional cases. Failure to take account of a specific fact, a material error, failure to rule on a claim or the discovery of a new fact may be treated as admissible grounds for review; but an error of law, misappraisal of evidence, failure to take account of evidence and failure to answer a plea may not."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 649
55th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"What [the Organisation] is really saying is that the Tribunal misapplied the rules, and an allegation of a mistake of law does not constitute admissible grounds for review since it is an attack on the principle of res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 564, 565, 614
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law;
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 645
54th Session, 1984
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
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. A new fact is a fact or an item of evidence which the applicant did not become aware of in time to be able to rely on it in the original proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 588
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not review a judgment to take account of a new claim."
Keywords:
application for review; new claim;
Judgment 610
53rd Session, 1984
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The plea "based on the item in the defendant's possession at the time of the original proceedings [...] is admissible. But the item must be of a kind which warrants review of the judgment". The document was drawn up after the internal proceedings to serve as the basis for a settlement. "Both the complainant and the Tribunal were aware of the offer of settlement, which was all that mattered at the time. The failure to disclose the item does not warrant any derogation from the rule that judgments are final, and the application must fail."
Keywords:
application for review; disclosure of evidence; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal maintains that "unless there is clear evidence, which there is not in this case, of a mistaken approach to the problem," the opinion of the competent body in the organization must be accepted. "That is the ratio decidendi, and the Tribunal [...] deliberately refrained from making findings on the evidence. [...] To allow the complainant's plea would be to countenance objections to the Tribunal's reasoning, and such objections do not constitute an admissible plea."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 446
Keywords:
application for review; failure to admit evidence;
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 609
52nd Session, 1984
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1, 2 and 4
Extract:
"By [its] judgment, the Tribunal ordered the organization to pay to the complainant $40,000 as 'compensation for the unlawful termination of his contract' and also $6,000 as costs." The organization paid that sum to the complainant in execution of the said judgment. The complainant seeks reimbursement for any taxes he might have to pay on the sum. "No obscurity in the judgment is alleged or identified. [...] The argument does not attempt to bring the case within the very limited grounds on which the tribunal permits reconsideration or review." The complaint is dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 523
Keywords:
application for interpretation; application for review; execution of judgment; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; material damages; refund; tax;
Judgment 604
52nd Session, 1984
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant invites the Tribunal to correct the material error in Judgments nos. 404, 442 and 536. The Tribunal recalls that a complainant may not submit the same pleas for review more than once. It first seeks to determine whether Judgment no. 536 suffers from any defects which would cause it to be set aside and which could then require the other judgments to be reconsidered. The Tribunal finds that Judgment no. 536 does not overlook the complainant's claims, contrary to her allegations, and is therefore not admissible for review. The complainant's criticism of the Tribunal's appraisal of the claims and certain facts in the case serves no purpose and is not an admissible ground for review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442, 536
Keywords:
application for review; material error; res judicata;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The judgment "gave a comprehensive answer to the complainant's claims. [...] In the circumstances that was an adequate answer. Since [...] an application for review is an exceptional procedure and a derogation from res judicata, a comprehensive answer is quite proper: the Tribunal need not answer every single argument once it has taken the view that the application is irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442, 536
Keywords:
application for review; omission to rule on a plea;
Judgment 593
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not allow review on the grounds of an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts."
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;
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 590
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"By a letter [...] the complainant wrote to regret that his case had been incorrectly ruled by the Tribunal and to assert that the dismissal of his complaint was not justified. Treating this letter as an application for further review, the Tribunal finds no grounds therein for any further review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 547
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 579
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to its case law ,the Tribunal will not allow review on the grounds of an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts; nor is failure to admit evidence a valid reason for review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 531
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The grounds upon which the complainant seeks review, viz. the error of his being placed by the Selection Committee in [a particular category], the failure of the Selection Committee to screen his case properly and the refusal of the Tribunal to summon witnesses whom the complainant did not call at the hearing by the [Internal Appeal Board], are not grounds for review."
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts; oral proceedings; refusal; tribunal;
Judgment 578
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant seeks review on the grounds of an omission to take account of particular facts, which is entirely without merit. "the complainant merely repeats arguments which he had put forward in his original complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 529
Keywords:
application for review;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
