Omission to rule on a claim (16,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Omission to rule on a claim
Total judgments found: 8

• Judgment 4783

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant filed an application for the review of Judgment 4424.

  Considerations 4-5

  Extract:

  The principles applicable in an application for review are well settled (see, for example, Judgment 4736, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein):
  “[T]he only admissible grounds for review are failure to take account of material facts, a material error involving no exercise of judgement, an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea, on the other hand, afford no grounds for review.”
  While he does not do so in his complaint brief, the complainant does seek to establish in his rejoinder how two of these grounds have been engaged. The first is that the Tribunal allegedly committed a material error of fact. The factual error was said to be that the Tribunal did not consider that the complainant had suffered any financial consequence for the decision placing him on unauthorised absence […], even though this was not the case. The complaint acknowledges this was not stated explicitly. Even if this analysis were correct (which it is not) it does not constitute a failure to take into account a material fact. The second ground is that the Tribunal allegedly failed to rule on a claim. Relevantly that was a claim for material damages. Having regard to the relief sought in the complaint leading to the judgment being reviewed, no such claim was made.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4736
  

  Keywords:

  admissible grounds for review; application for review; material error; omission to rule on a claim;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4367

  
  131st Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgments 4255 and 4256.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  Concerning the alleged omission to rule on a claim, the complainant submits that the Tribunal failed to rule on his claim that his complaints were receivable at the time they were filed. However, this is not a claim but a plea inherent to all complaints submitted to the Tribunal, as all complainants necessarily consider that their complaints are receivable. Moreover, once the Tribunal had found that the complaints in question had become without object, there was no reason to deal with the question of their receivability at the time they were filed. Accordingly, this ground for review is rejected.

  Keywords:

  omission to rule on a claim;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2213

  
  95th Session, 2003
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  In his application for review "the complainant contends that the Tribunal failed to rule on requests for the disclosure of documents by the organization [...] A plea that the Tribunal failed to rule on claims is related to a complainant's submissions on the merits; by contrast, decisions by the Tribunal on requests for the disclosure of documents concern the administration and appraisal of evidence and cannot, in principle, give rise to review."

  Keywords:

  application for review; appraisal of evidence; disclosure of evidence; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a claim;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2021

  
  90th Session, 2001
  International Office of Epizootics
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  The complainant alleges that the Tribunal has failed to rule on one of his claims in his previous case. But it was merely a plea and not a claim. "The Tribunal did not need to address that plea if it felt it was unnecessary to do so."

  Keywords:

  application for review; omission to rule on a claim; omission to rule on a plea;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1952

  
  89th Session, 2000
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 3-4

  Extract:

  "Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal's judgments are final and without appeal and that they carry the authority of res judicata. It is only in quite exceptional circumstances that an application for review, although not provided for in the Statute, can be allowed: the only grounds which may be entertained are failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new facts which the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the proceedings which led to the judgment which the complainant is seeking to reverse. The application for review should also be filed within a reasonable time and the pleas put forward should be of such a nature as to affect the original ruling. [...] In the present case, the Tribunal finds that none of the grounds exist for challenging the ruling already made[: the] application for review was only filed more than one year after the adoption of the judgment that she is challenging [...] The complainant now merely calls into question the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. [A] form, which she says constitutes a new fact, had already been sent to her counsel [...] during the internal appeals procedure. [Finally, the plea] that she was not assisted effectively by her former counsel [...] does not warrant review of the Tribunal's judgment."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1727
  

  Keywords:

  admissible grounds for review; application for review; counsel; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; omission to rule on a claim; reasonable time; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1036

  
  69th Session, 1990
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "The complainant says that the Tribunal did not rule on her claim to damages for 'psychological' injury. The case law recognises no special head of damages of that kind: damages may be either for material or for moral injury." Judgment 917 having expressly rejected such a claim, the complainant's allegation is unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 917
  

  Keywords:

  application for review; omission to rule on a claim;
  

  
  
  

• 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;
  

  
  
  

• 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;