|
|
 |
|
|
Finality of judgment (12,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Finality of judgment
Total judgments found: 18
Judgment 4753
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Plainly the Tribunal can, and often does, consider related complaints at the same session and by the same panel of judges. The joinder of two complaints is a legal device deployed by the Tribunal in order that one judgment can be rendered, and orders then made disposing of the joined complaints. When considering the scope and purpose of a joinder, it must be borne in mind that while such an order can be made in relation to multiple complaints by one complainant, they can also be made in relation to complaints by two or more individuals who, in substance, raise the same grievance. This latter situation illustrates the need for such orders to be made only in quite explicit circumstances and to be guided by focused principles and not loosely expressed generalities. This is particularly important given the res judicata effect of the Tribunal’s judgments. It would be wrong, in principle, to burden one individual with the legal outcome of proceedings where her or his complaint has been joined with the complaints of others in which legal issues have arisen and are resolved, but not legal issues raised by that individual.
Keywords:
finality of judgment; identical facts; joinder; judgment of the tribunal; order;
Judgment 3152
114th Session, 2013
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgments 2867 and 3003.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, "according to the provisions of Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal”, and they are therefore “immediately operative”, as its earliest case law established (see, in particular, Judgment 82, under 6). The Tribunal subsequently noted that the principle that its judgments are immediately operative is also a corollary of their res judicata authority [...]. For this reason, international organisations which have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see [...] Judgments 553 and 1328, or Judgment 1338, under 11). Lastly, there is no provision in the Statute or the Rules of the Tribunal stipulating that, notwithstanding these principles, the submission of an application for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice under [...] Article XII has the effect of staying the execution of the impugned judgment pending the rendering of that opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles VI and XII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 553, 1328, 1338
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; competence of tribunal; consequence; decision; declaration of recognition; exception; execution of judgment; finality of judgment; icj; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; no provision; organisation's duties; request by a party; res judicata; suspensory effects;
Judgment 3058
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is well established that the same question cannot be the subject of more than one proceeding between the same parties. Accordingly, to the extent that these complaints raise the very same issue raised in the proceedings in respect of which the Tribunal has issued Judgment 3056, that aspect of the present complaints must be struck out."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3056
Keywords:
finality of judgment; identical claims; identical facts; parallel proceedings; res judicata; same parties;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is a fundamental principle that a person cannot, in separate proceedings, challenge a judgment to which he was a party by raising issues that could have been raised in the earlier proceedings."
Keywords:
finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The right of an organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal / Absolute privilege.
"The doctrine of res judicata is one of the legal concepts that serve to ensure that judicial decisions are final and binding and that litigation is brought to a final conclusion. Another such concept is 'absolute privilege' insofar as it relates to statements made in legal proceedings. [A]bsolute privilege attaches to statements made in, and in the course of, legal proceedings, including statements by the parties, their legal representatives and their witnesses so that, save in the case of perjury or interference with the course of justice, those statements may not be the subject of separate proceedings. Absolute privilege serves another important function. It enables the parties to present their cases fully so that a decision can be reached on the whole of the available evidence."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; binding character; evidence; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; submissions; testimony;
Judgment 2993
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Setting up of a pension fund to replace existing pension scheme and introduction of implementing measures.
"[T]he principle of '[r]es judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard'. The principle applies when the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case (see Judgments 1216, under 3, and 1263, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 1263, 2316
Keywords:
binding character; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Judgment 2826
107th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"There was nothing to preclude the complainant from raising the argument based on the French text of the Staff Regulations in his first complaint. He was then armed with the recommendation and reasons of the Appeal Board, both of which were based on the English text of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. Further, as he was then seeking recognition of his same-sex partner as a dependent spouse, it was for him to advance argument as to why that course should be taken rather than the more limited course recommended by the Appeal Board. Moreover, the grounds on which the Tribunal may review its judgments are limited to «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» (see Judgment 1252 and also Judgments 442, 555 and 649). The argument based on the French text is, in essence, an argument that the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules as barring recognition of the complainant's partner as his dependent spouse. That is not an admissible ground for the review of a judgment (see Judgment 2029). Nor is it a ground for review that, on 3 September 2007 and after Judgment 2643 was delivered, the complainant married his partner in British Columbia in accordance with the law of Canada. It would entirely defeat the principles of finality and res judicata if subsequent facts could be taken into account on an application for review of a judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 555, 649, 1252, 2029, 2643
Keywords:
application for review; dependant; finality of judgment; inadmissible grounds for review; language of rule; marital status; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata; same-sex marriage;
Judgment 2316
96th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard. It extends to bar proceedings on an issue that must necessarily have been determined in the earlier proceeding even if that precise issue was not then in dispute. In such a case, the question whether res judicata applies will ordinarily be answered by ascertaining whether one or other of the parties seeks to challenge or controvert some aspect of the actual decision reached in the earlier case."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; definition; enforcement; finality of judgment; general principle; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same purpose; settlement out of court; staff member's duties; tribunal;
Judgment 2168
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
"Except for some minor and irrelevant matters of detail, and differences in the manner and form, but not the substance of the arguments presented, the case of the present complainants is almost identical to that which was decided by the tribunal in Judgment 2142 [...] all issues, both procedural and substantive, were definitively dealt with by the tribunal in that case [...] while that judgment is not technically res judicata, for there is no identity of the parties, it constitutes authoritative case law which the Tribunal will follow."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2142
Keywords:
case law; consequence; decision; difference; exception; finality of judgment; formal requirements; grounds; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 2029
90th Session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considérant 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal will [...] consider whether the Organization's pleas fall within the admissible grounds for review. The FAO submits that in interpreting the rules on the recruitment of professional staff the Tribunal made an error of law which voids Article VIII(3) of the FAO Constitution of all substance and disregards the Director-General's discretionary authority. Such an allegation calls into question the Tribunal's legal reasoning. To allow review of the interpretation of [the] rules [at issue] would render meaningless the principle that the Tribunal's judgments are final and immediately acquire the authority of res judicata. It would also allow its judgments to be questioned systematically by complainants who are dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision."
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1825
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments are final and binding. They are not subject to appeal. The Tribunal will not entertain applications for revision or review except in the most unusual circumstances such as fraud or the discovery of conclusive new evidence which could not have been brought forward before. The stability of judicial procedures and the need to bring an end to litigation require that parties must accept the result they obtain even when they are unsatisfied with it. Where both parties have had a full opportunity to present their case and where no new and previously undiscoverable factual element is brought forward the principle of res judicata prevents the reopening and rearguing of cases already decided."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; evidence; finality of judgment; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1824
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. There are two sides to every case and the party who loses will usually believe that the Tribunal committed an error. There must, however, be an end to litigation and the stability of the judicial process requires that final judgments of the kind here at issue be set aside only on limited grounds and for the gravest of reasons."
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; res judicata;
Judgment 1545
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has often held, its judgments carry the force of res judicata and are not subject to appeal. Only in exceptional cases may it review them. Application for review is an extraordinary remedy that is not to be mistaken for appeal. Appeal lies only to a court of higher instance that may reconsider the whole case, whereas review, as contemplated in the case law, falls to the Tribunal itself."
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; res judicata;
Judgment 1529
81st Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"In Judgment 442 [...] and in many later judgments the Tribunal has declared an alleged mistake of law to be an inadmissible plea for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds that the Tribunal's legal reasoning was wrong would be to let anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision question it indefinitely in disregard of the res judicata rule. [...] The application must be summarily dismissed as clearly irreceivable under Article 7 of the Tribunal's Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; iloat statute; mistake of law; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 1507
81st Session, 1996
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent the Tribunal will allow an application for review only in exceptional cases. Its judgments are, as Article VI of its Statute says, 'final and without appeal' and carry the authority of res judicata. Admissible grounds for review are strictly limited: failure to take account of a material fact, an error of fact which involves no exercise of judgment, failure to rule on a claim, and the discovery of a new fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the plea must be such as to affect the original ruling: see Judgment 1255 [...] under 2." Inadmissible pleas for review are a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, a wrong appraisal of the facts and failure to rule on pleas: see, for example, Judgment 442 [...], also under 2."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1255
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of evidence; finality of judgment; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 570
51st Session, 1983
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The principle of finality is vital to the administration of justice but judges are human and can make slips and the principle does not go so far as to require that errors arising through accident or inadvertence or the like can never be corrected; if it went as far as that, the principle could be made an instrument of injustice. [Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal] does not therefore preclude the exercise of a limited power of review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508
Keywords:
finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata;
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 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;
Judgment 171
25th Session, 1970
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"[A]ccording to Article VI of the Statute, "the Tribunal shall take decisions by a majority vote; judgments shall be final and without appeal." Accordingly, if [the complainant] is requesting the Tribunal to quash its earlier judgments nos. 142 and 151 [...] his claims are irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 142, 151
Keywords:
application for quashing; finality of judgment; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; last instance; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 94
16th Session, 1966
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"By Judgment No. 90 [...] the Tribunal quashed the decision [...] dismissing [the complainant], thereby finding that his reinstatement was possible and not inadvisable; this judgment, which disposes of the issues raised is final, and the organization cannot reopen these issues." [The organization submitted that it had been unable to make its objections to reinstatement in time and that such reinstatement was moreover impossible; it asked the Tribunal to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement.]
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 90
Keywords:
decision quashed; execution of judgment; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; material damages; reinstatement; res judicata; termination of employment;
|
|
|
|
|
