Judgment 570
51st Session, 1983
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The organisation pleads [...] that the Tribunal omitted to take account of material facts. In support of such a plea, the organisation should [1] particularise each fact that was ignored; [2] identify the passages in the dossier which show that the organisation was relying upon the fact; [3] demonstrate from the terms of the judgment submitted for review that the Tribunal could not have reached the conclusion it did if it had taken the fact into account."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508
Keywords:
application for review; condition;
Summary
Extract:
The organisation applied for review of Judgments 507 and 508. The application was dismissed for failing to show the existence of exceptional circumstances needed to justify it. The application for review was dismissed. Each respondent is awarded costs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508
Keywords:
application filed by the organisation; application for review; costs;
Consideration 8(1)
Extract:
"A review is normally confined to the facts in the dossier of the case whose judgment is being submitted for review. It is useless for the applicant to refer to facts outside the dossier unless he introduces them specially as new facts and justifies their introduction accordingly."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508
Keywords:
application for review; purport;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The power of review may be exercised in cases of "an omission to take account of particular facts; a material error involving no exercise of judgment and therefore distinguishable from misappraisal of fact which does not warrant review; an omission to pass judgment on a claim; and the discovery of a so-called 'new' fact [...] an error within these categories constitutes a basis for the exercise of the power to review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review;
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 7
Extract:
In the "judgment submitted for review, the Tribunal stated that the effect of certain decisions of the [National Supreme Court] was 'summed up [...] in terms which the organisation does not dispute'. The organisation, while not denying that it failed to challenge the summary, wishes now to dispute it and to put in evidence the opinions of experts who take the contrary view. This is not permissible."
Keywords:
application filed by the organisation; application for review; new claim; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
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 555
50th Session, 1983
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The mistake of law, to his mind, turns on failure to comply with an ILO circular [...] The plea is not admissible. To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's legal reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata. Even supposing that the Tribunal did not give due weight to the complainant's argument, the plea must fail."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 534
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law;
Considerations
Extract:
"Only a few pleas may be allowed in support of an application for review. They include an omission to take account of particular facts; a material error involving no exercise of judgment and thereby distinguishable from misappraisal of fact, which does not warrant review; an omission to pass judgment on a claim; and the discovery of a so-called 'new' fact, i.e. one which the applicant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 534
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review;
Judgment 554
50th Session, 1983
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The Tribunal stated in Judgment No. 486 that "the question for its decision was whether it was within its competence to enforce a rule of policy or practice. The Tribunal found that there was such a rule, but that since it conflicted with a staff rule, it did not create an obligation which the Tribunal was competent to enforce. [...] It is manifest from the judgment that the rule of policy or practice, by whatever evidence its existence was proved, was in this case unenforceable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 486
Keywords:
applicable law; application for review; difference; evidence; practice; precedence of rules; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 536
49th Session, 1982
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant contends that Judgment 442 overlooked one of her claims raised in the additional claims for relief in her third complaint. "The plea fails. The Tribunal gave a brief but adequate reply in paragraph 10 of its judgment when it said that it had no reason to alter its decision".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
application for review; omission to rule on a claim;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant once again applied for review of Judgment No. 404 and Judgment No. 442 [which concerned the review of Judgment No. 404]. "Review is an exceptional procedure [...] The complainant may not put forward repeatedly the same pleas in favour of review. In the applications now before the Tribunal her pleas may be only such as she was unable to rely on in the first one or such as the Tribunal may have omitted to hear in Judgment No. 442."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442
Keywords:
application for review; exception;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Judgment No. 442 [a review of Judgment No. 404] contains no recapitulation of the facts; the procedure followed was the summary one, "and the complaint was not communicated to the [organisation] for reply. There being no exchange of memoranda, no purpose would have been served by summarising the facts and submissions in the complaint since in any event the Tribunal was required to review the whole case in order to answer the complainant's arguments."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442
Keywords:
application for review; consequence; summary procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The application for the correction of alleged material errors is not admissible. The parties have discussed one of the matters raised in the previous cases; the others, for which there is not a shred of evidence, do not constitute new facts.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442
Keywords:
application for review;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"One of [the complainant's] arguments is that the Tribunal was not correctly constituted when it delivered Judgment No. 404" and that because of various other defects the judgment is null and void. "This is a plea she might have put forward in the written proceedings in her fourth complaint, which culminated in Judgment No. 442. It is therefore not admissible."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442
Keywords:
application for review; composition of the internal appeals body; inadmissible grounds for review; recusal; tribunal;
Judgment 510
49th Session, 1982
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Although there is no provision in the Tribunal's Statute or Rules of court for an application for the review of its judgments, such an application may be made. It will, however, be receivable only if certain conditions are fulfilled, and one is that it may not rest on facts on which the applicant might have relied years earlier. To enlarge the scope for review in that way would encourage unsuccessful complainants to make repeated attempts to get the Tribunal to review its judgments, in disregard of the principle of res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 309
Keywords:
application for review; exception; no provision; res judicata;
Judgment 504
48th Session, 1982
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant alleges that there is a material error in the consideration concerning the classification of a post of Judgment no. 325. The plea fails. "In commenting on the grade of the post [...] the Tribunal chose between conflicting views. It made, not just a finding of fact, but an appraisal of evidence on a matter in dispute, and under the case law such appraisal does not afford grounds for review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 325
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;
Consideration 4
Extract:
A staff rule "is a rule, not a fact in the legal sense of the term. thus to omit reference to it would [...] be [...] possibly to commit a mistake of law. An allegation of mistake of law does not afford grounds for review."
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The argument concerning the application of a provision "affords no grounds whatever for reviewing the original judgment". The complainant refers to the provision in the memorandum appended to his initial complaint. Thus, far from being in itself a claim for relief, the argument was "merely a plea in support of his claims. Even if the Tribunal did not comment on the argument, it did not disregard a claim for relief. Besides, it stated that there was no need to rely on [the provision]; thus it did not disregard the rule."
Keywords:
application for review; enforcement; omission to rule on a plea; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant accuses the Director-General of complicity and dishonesty. These accusations rest on facts of which he was in any event aware when he made his first application for review and they cannot now constitute an admissible plea for review."
Keywords:
application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 467
47th Session, 1982
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant "is now pursuing a claim which [was] dismissed in Judgment No. 395, and his present complaint thus appears to be an application for review of that judgment. He is relying on what he alleges to be a new situation. In fact it is not: the Tribunal was not unaware of it in delivering Judgment No. 395, and indeed referred to it. Nevertheless the complainant's claim [...] was dismissed. There is no reason to grant him now what he was not granted before: the matter is res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 395
Keywords:
application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 443
46th Session, 1981
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Inadmissible grounds for review include an alleged mistake of law, an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, a failure to admit evidence and the omission to comment on pleas submitted by the parties.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 325
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Summary
Extract:
The complainant objects that the Tribunal omitted to take account of one line in an item of evidence. He thus objects to the Tribunal's evaluation of evidence, which is not a plea which can afford grounds for review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 325
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of evidence; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 442
46th Session, 1981
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"As a rule an official's comments on his subordinates do not give them any right to compensation; otherwise supervisors would express only guarded opinions about their subordinates, and that would be harmful to the organisation's efficiency. The most that can be said is that when a supervisor expresses an opinion which he knows to be untrue for a purely malicious purpose he, or the organisation, will be liable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
allowance; application for review; consequence; difference; general principle; injury; liability; mistake of fact; organisation; purpose; right; supervisor; work appraisal;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"There may be either one or two stages in review proceedings. The Tribunal will first determine whether the plea is admissible. If it is not, the Tribunal will dismiss the application without looking further. If it holds any of the pleas to be admissible, it will then reconsider its judgment on the basis of the evidence adduced in the review proceedings. Those are the only circumstances in which the Tribunal will hear the complainant's submissions on the merits."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; claim; elements; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 10
Extract:
In dismissing all the complainant's claims for relief, the Tribunal rejected by implication her claims for compensation for moral prejudice. It did not pass express comment on those claims nor state its reasons for dismissing them. This failure affords a valid ground for review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; allowance; application for review; claim; grounds; moral injury; omission to rule on a claim; refusal;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments carry the authority of res judicata from the date on which it delivers them. Though subject to review thereafter, they will be reviewed only in exceptional cases. that is the rule under all judicial systems which allow review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; date; exception; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; res judicata;
Consideration 8(G)
Extract:
An application for review "will fail unless it relies on flaws which may have an effect on the Tribunal's decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; condition; consequence; flaw; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Receivable grounds for review include the following: a fact overlooked, material error, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of a new fact. The Tribunal has not had to declare in what cases such pleas will in general be allowed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; disregard of essential fact; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; omission to rule on a claim; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 2 and 8(B)
Extract:
Among inadmissible grounds for review is alleged mistaken appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts. Parties who are dissatisfied with a decision may not question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; definition; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; misinterpretation of the facts; res judicata;
Considerations 3 and 13
Extract:
The discovery of a new fact, "i.e. a fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings" is admissible. Such a fact must not be one which, had the complainant taken due care, might have been cited in the original complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; definition; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Consideration 1
Extract:
Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court provide for review of the Tribunal's judgments. Is it to be inferred that review is thereby precluded or simply left for the Tribunal itself to determine ? The Tribunal "has heard several applications for review, but has dismissed them simply by finding that there were no grounds for review. It has not yet discussed in full the scope for review of its judgments." In the present case the problem will be dealt with in part by citing the pleas which are not receivable and reserving judgment on the others.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; no provision;
Consideration 12
Extract:
By contending that the Tribunal did not order an expert medical inquiry, the complainant objects that a particular means of obtaining evidence was not used. But the failure to admit evidence is not a valid reason for review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; expert inquiry; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's legal reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; request by a party; res judicata;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Inadmissible grounds for review include an alleged mistake of law, an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, a failure to admit evidence and the omission to comment on pleas submitted by the parties.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of evidence; appraisal of facts; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Consideration 13(A)
Extract:
"A staff member may properly allege unfair treatment where general rules are not applied in the same way to all the staff members to which they are applicable, but he may not do so by comparing circumstances created by particular measures, such as agreements for the reappointment of particular officials. Such agreements will differ because the circumstances of each case differ, and there is no inequality of treatment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; individual decision; official; provision; reinstatement; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 400
43rd Session, 1980
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court permit an application for review of a judgment of the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal may therefore declare such an application receivable only in quite exceptional circumstances, for example when new facts of decisive importance have come to light since the date of the judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 325
Keywords:
application for review; exception; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; no provision;
Judgment 350
41st Session, 1978
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"Neither the Statute nor the Rules of court permit an application for review of a judgment of the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal may therefore declare such an application receivable only in quite exceptional circumstances, for example when new facts of decisive importance have come to light since the date of the judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 325
Keywords:
application for review; exception; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 201
30th Session, 1973
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"There is no provision in the Statute or Rules of Court of the Administrative Tribunal for the revision of its judgments. Such a complaint could therefore be considered by the Tribunal only in quite exceptional circumstances".
Keywords:
application for review; exception; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal;
Considerations
Extract:
The complaint could be entertained "only in quite exceptional circumstances, in particular if the complainant adduces facts or evidence which he was unable, through no fault of his own, to produce during the earlier proceedings; it would in any event not provide an opportunity for the parties to repair an omission or correct an error made by them during the original hearing of the case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 189
Keywords:
application for review; condition; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Considerations
Extract:
"[T]he sole grounds adduced by [the complainant] in support of his complaint could have been put forward during the proceeding terminated by Judgment No. 189. His application for a review of the judgment is therefore irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 189
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
