Admissible grounds for review (8, 14, 15, 16, 683, 802,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Admissible grounds for review
Total judgments found: 67

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4

• Judgment 658

  
  55th Session, 1985
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  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 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;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 610

  
  53rd Session, 1984
  Pan American Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  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;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 570

  
  51st Session, 1983
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  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;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 555

  
  50th Session, 1983
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  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 442

  
  46th Session, 1981
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  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 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;
  

  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;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4