Mistake of law (567,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Mistake of law
Total judgments found: 46

< previous | 1, 2, 3

• 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;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 504

  
  48th Session, 1982
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  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;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 442

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

  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 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;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 203

  
  30th Session, 1973
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "[T]he decision impugned [summary dismissal] is tainted by a procedural irregularity and by error of law, both of these being grounds requiring it to be quashed."

  Keywords:

  flaw; mistake of law; procedural flaw; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 135

  
  22nd Session, 1969
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations

  Extract:

  The refusal to grant a permanent post to the complainant was quashed because of legal error. The organisation again rejected the complainant's application. The complainant's claim for damages "is well founded only insofar as it rests on the prejudice arising out of the illegal decision [...] which lapsed on [...] which date the decision legally rejecting his application for a permanent post was issued." The Tribunal awards the complainant a sum in compensation, in particular, for the "prejudice caused to complainant by the state of uncertainty in which he found himself as a result of the rescinded decision."

  Keywords:

  amount; confirmatory decision; decision; flaw; injury; mistake of law; moral injury; refusal; titularization;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 123

  
  20th Session, 1968
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  In approving the complainant's application for repatriation grant, the organisation misinterpreted the regulations. Its approval was conditional. The complainant had to prove that he had made definite travel arrangements, but did not do so. "[T]he [organisation] did not violate any law by withdrawing its approval, given in error, before any action had been taken upon it and before the stipulated proviso had been fulfilled, and without any costs having been incurred by the complainant."

  Keywords:

  acceptance; allowance; condition; flaw; mistake of law; travel expenses; withdrawal of decision;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3