Res judicata (94, 95, 96, 97,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Res judicata
Total judgments found: 155
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 1365
77th Session, 1994
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The organization submits that there was no point in resuming the process of appointment as ordered in Judgment 1272. "But there the organization shows misunderstanding about the effect of a judgment. The quashing of [Mr. X's] appointment [...] being res judicata, it had a duty under the judgment to resume the process from the date of the unlawful appointment, regardless of the new situation arising from the expiry of [Mr. X's] appointment and his assignment to [another] post [...]. The complainants are therefore right in contending that the organization was at fault in refusing to carry out the process properly."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272
Keywords:
application for execution; breach; consequence; execution of judgment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; material damages; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants seek the quashing of a decision in which the WTO refused to resume the appointment process as ordered in Judgment 1272. "Yet any satisfaction that the complainants might derive from resumption of the procedure would be merely formal [so] the Tribunal exercises the option that Article VIII of its Statute allows of not setting aside the [impugned] decisions."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272
Keywords:
application for execution; breach; consequence; damages; execution of judgment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata;
Judgment 1362
77th Session, 1994
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal must rule yet again on WIPO's refusal to discharge the obligation to decide on reinstatement. As it has stated more than once, its judgments are to be given immediate effect. In the regrettable event that the Organization continues to disregard that rule and fails to act within 30 days of the date of delivery of this judgment, it must pay the complainant 10,000 swiss francs by way of penalty for each further month of delay."
Keywords:
amount; application for execution; continuing breach; decision; delay; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; penalty for delay; refusal; reinstatement; res judicata; time limit;
Judgment 1361
77th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal reaffirms that its rulings have the force of res judicata and are binding on the organisations that have recognised its jurisdiction. Any organisation that offends against that rudimentary principle by refusing to give effect to judgments it does not care for is disregarding the rights of staff and its own interests and is acting in breach of the obligations that it has assumed by recognising the Tribunal's jurisdiction."
Keywords:
acceptance; application for execution; competence of tribunal; continuing breach; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; res judicata; staff member's interest;
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 1338
77th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
"An organisation must, where a specific sum has been awarded [by the Tribunal], pay compensation if it takes more than one month to pay after the judgment was notified, save that if, as in Judgment 1219, the Tribunal does not put a figure on the amount due, the need to work out the figure warrants allowing additional time. In this instance [...] apart from alleging the need for consultations the Organization has offered no explanation for the delay in payment. The Tribunal therefore awards the complainant payment of interest".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1219
Keywords:
administrative delay; amount; application for execution; delay; execution of judgment; formal demand for payment; interest on damages; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; payment; penalty for delay; res judicata; time limit;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"An international organisation which has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction is bound, not merely to refrain from acting in disregard of a judgment, but to take whatever action the judgment may require."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1219
Keywords:
application for execution; consequence; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata;
Judgment 1328
76th Session, 1994
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal's rulings carry the authority of res judicata, save that in accordance with Article XII(1) of its Statute and the Annex thereto their validity may be challenged on referral by an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice on the grounds of lack of competence or a fundamental fault in the procedure followed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE XII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; competence of tribunal; flaw; icj; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata;
Consideration 12
Extract:
As the International Court of Justice has held, "that rulings by international administrative tribunals are binding in particular where they make awards against organisations is the corollary of their judicial authority." (Advisory opinions of 13 July 1954 and 23 October 1956.) "In Judgment 553 [...] the Tribunal explained the nature of the obligation that its rulings lay on an organisation".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 553
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; compensation; execution of judgment; icj; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; payment; res judicata; tribunal;
Judgment 1309
76th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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;
Judgment 1306
76th Session, 1994
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As was held in Judgment 802, an application for interpretation of a judgment is receivable only if the meaning of the Tribunal's ruling is uncertain or ambiguous."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 802
Keywords:
application for interpretation; case law; condition; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant submits that the Union failed to execute in full an earlier judgment in which the Tribunal gave him satisfaction. The UPU says that he failed to exhaust the internal means of appeal. The Tribunal holds that his application for interpretation "is receivable because the parties disagree on how to combine [two points of the ruling in the material judgment], only the Tribunal itself may resolve the issue, and there was no need to follow any internal appeal procedure beforehand".
Keywords:
application for interpretation; execution of judgment; internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;
Judgment 1263
75th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The res judicata rule will apply where the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case."
Keywords:
definition; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Identity of purpose means that what the complainant is seeking is what he would have obtained had his earlier suit succeeded. And it is not the actual working of the decision that matters but the complainant's intent."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; criteria; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same purpose;
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 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 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;
Judgment 1242
74th Session, 1993
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant submits that the organization did not do its utmost to reinstate him in execution of Judgment 1154. WIPO's letter "does not substantiate the contention that it had. it simply conveys the Director General's decision 'not to extend [the complainant]'s appointment'. It says nothing of any attempts to find him a suitable position and thereby discharge its primary obligation under Judgment 1154. [...] The Director General had the duty to justify his decision by explaining why it was impossible to reinstate the complainant [...] only in its reply to this complaint does the organization maintain that 'there was no possibility of reinstating the complainant since there was no suitable post to which he could be appointed given his qualifications'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1154
Keywords:
application for execution; duty to substantiate decision; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; organisation's duties; refusal; reinstatement; reply; res judicata; submissions; tribunal;
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 1216
74th Session, 1993
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"There are three conditions for sustaining [irreceivability under the res judicata rule]: the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action must be the same as in the earlier case."
Keywords:
case law; definition; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Identity of purpose means that what the complainant is seeking is what he would have obtained had his earlier suit succeeded. The criterion is not the purport of the decision but the complainant's true intention."
Keywords:
definition; res judicata; same purpose;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Among the conditions which the Tribunal sets out for pleading res judicata is cause of action. "What the cause of action means is the foundation of the claim in law. It is not the same thing as the pleas, which are submissions on issues of law or of fact put forward in support of the claim. [...] In many instances the question will be whether the complainant's line of argument does not show some direct link with the earlier case." This entails determining whether the complainant's claim has "the same foundation in law as the claims dismissed in earlier judgments".
Keywords:
cause; definition; res judicata; same cause of action;
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 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 1168
73rd Session, 1992
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"In his original complaint the applicant stated his claim in dollars and he was accordingly awarded and paid the amount in that currency. If there was any risk of loss due to fluctuations in the rate of exchange, he ought to have raised the issue in the context of his original complaint. [...] Since he chose to state his claim in dollars and succeeded, the matter is res judicata and he may not have it reconsidered. There is no merit in his plea that 'lack of experience' explains why he did not think of the effect of changing rates of exchange: ignorantia juris haud excusat."
Keywords:
application for execution; currency of payment; duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; exchange rate; execution of judgment; ignorance of the rules; 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 1122
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainants want the Tribunal to set aside all the decisions that applied the "Eurocontrol reduction" to their salaries after 12 November 1987. To avoid the time bar, they rely on the emergence of a new fact, namely Judgment 1012, which quashed the decision to lower pay by 0.7 per cent before that date. "That judgment is final and has the authority of res judicata, including the ruling in it that certain claims are irreceivable. On no account may it be treated as a new fact setting off a new time limit for filing a complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1012
Keywords:
adjustment; complaint; exception; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; res judicata; salary; time bar;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
