Application for review (7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 683, 802, 12, 13, 9, 11, 17, 567, 757, 744, 754, 803, 882,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Application for review
Total judgments found: 178
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4908
138th Session, 2024
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 4674.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; summary procedure;
Judgment 4906
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for review of Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732.
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Tribunal has already recalled in consideration 2 of Judgment 4440, rendered, as has been stated, on a previous application for review filed by the complainant, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are “final and without appeal” and have res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. Under Article 6, paragraph 5, of the Rules of the Tribunal, the only admissible grounds of review are a failure to take account of material facts, a material error (namely a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely 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 (see, for example, Judgments 4327, consideration 3, 3473, consideration 3, 3452, consideration 2, and 3001, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 4327, 4440
Keywords:
application for review;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; summary procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The five [...] applications for review are directed against judgments concerning related cases and rest on similar arguments. Accordingly, they will be joined to form the subject of a single judgment.
Keywords:
application for review; joinder;
Judgment 4875
138th Session, 2024
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: UNWTO has applied for the review of Judgment 4576.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; costs;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant seeks an order for costs in the sum of 1,500 euros to which he is entitled in the circumstances of this case given that he has been put to the trouble and expenses of, legitimately, answering the Organization’s pleas in this application to protect her interests.
Keywords:
application for review; costs;
Judgment 4873
138th Session, 2024
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: UNWTO has applied for the review of Judgment 4453.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; costs;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant seeks an order for costs in the sum of 1,500 euros to which he is entitled in the circumstances of this case given that he has been put to the trouble and expenses of, legitimately, answering the Organization’s pleas in this application to protect her interests.
Keywords:
application for review; costs;
Judgment 4870
138th Session, 2024
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: UNWTO has applied for the review of Judgment 4577.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant seeks an order for costs in the sum of 1,500 euros to which she is entitled in the circumstances of this case given that she has been put to the trouble and expenses of, legitimately, answering the Organization’s pleas in this application to protect her interests.
Keywords:
application for review; costs;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; costs;
Judgment 4868
138th Session, 2024
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: UNWTO has applied for the review of Judgment 4456.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; costs;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant seeks an order for costs in the sum of 1,500 euros to which she is entitled in the circumstances of this case given that she has been put to the trouble and expenses of, legitimately, answering the Organization’s pleas in this application to protect her interests.
Keywords:
application for review; costs;
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 keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4424
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4782
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants filed an application review of Judgment 4484.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4484
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4736
136th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4571.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal concludes that, as the complainant is essentially confining herself in revisiting arguments advanced unsuccessfully in her fourth complaint and expressing disagreement with the Tribunal’s appraisal of the evidence and interpretation of the law, her application for review is in fact a mere attempt to reopen issues already settled in the original judgment (see, for similar cases, Judgments 4122, consideration 7, and 3897, consideration 4). The matters raised are res judicata and she puts forward no legitimate ground to reopen the findings made by the Tribunal in the original judgment (see Judgments 4440, consideration 7, and 3479, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3479, 3897, 4122, 4440
Keywords:
application for review; res judicata;
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4571
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Considerations 6 & 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the Tribunal came to the wrong conclusion in considering that the decision which was impugned in her fourth complaint was not a final one challengeable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute. She asserts that the Tribunal relied on wrong legal provisions, made a poor interpretation of the wording of the decision in question, omitted to consider that she had lodged a prior request for review and did not take into consideration IOM’s refusal to follow the procedures established for the internal appeal process.
By those arguments, the complainant is in fact simply alleging that the Tribunal incorrectly appraised the facts in question. Such arguments do not constitute admissible grounds for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 5, and 3983, consideration 6).
[...]
[T]he omission to rule on a plea is not an admissible ground for review [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3983, 4440
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The legal assessments made by the Tribunal in a judgment cannot be challenged in an application for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 4, and 3984, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 4440
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4730
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4417.
Consideration 3
Extract:
For a considerable time, the process of review of the Tribunal’s judgments was not expressly recognised in the Tribunal’s Statute, but it now is in Article VI by an amendment made by the International Labour Conference on 7 June 2016. However, the settled principles governing the process of review have been developed by the Tribunal over time and before the amendment of the Statute in 2016 and continue to apply. According to those principles, the Tribunal’s judgments are final and without appeal and have res judicata authority. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds of review are failure to take account of material facts, a material error (in other words, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgment 4338, consideration 2, and the judgments referred to therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4338
Keywords:
application for review;
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4417
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4729
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4415.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant has filed with the Tribunal an application for review of Judgment 4415. Until recently, the process of review was not expressly recognised in the Tribunal’s Statute, but it now is in Article VI, paragraph 1, of the Statute, by an amendment adopted by the International Labour Conference on 7 June 2016. However, the settled principles governing the process of review have been developed by the Tribunal over time, and before the amendment, and continue to apply. As the Tribunal most recently observed in consideration 2 of Judgment 4440 […]
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4415, 4440
Keywords:
application for review;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The short answer, in this case, is that the alleged errors (if they be reviewable errors) on the Tribunal’s part are not likely to have had a bearing on the central outcome, namely the refusal to order reinstatement.
Keywords:
application for review;
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4415
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4706
136th Session, 2023
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4273.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4273, 4705
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4705
136th Session, 2023
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4274.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4274
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed;
Considerations 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15
Extract:
The Tribunal’s consistent precedent has it that, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry res judicata authority. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds therefor are a failure to take account of material facts, a material error (in other words, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, which thus differs from misinterpretation of the facts), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 4338, consideration 2, 3897, consideration 3, 3815, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, 3452, consideration 2, and 3001, consideration 2).
[...]
It should [...] be noted that the alleged error was not likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case, as required by the aforementioned case law in order to establish a ground for review.
[T]he inadequacy of the reasons given for a judgment is not in any event one of the grounds for review recognised in the case law, an exhaustive list of which has been provided [...].
[T]he complainant is in fact seeking to use this argument to challenge the Tribunal’s interpretation of his written submissions, which cannot be properly challenged in an application for review [...].
[T]he Tribunal made a legal assessment which is plainly not open to challenge in an application for review.
[T]he complainant’s application for review is, for the main part, merely an attempt to re-litigate matters that were conclusively decided by the Tribunal in Judgment 4274 and must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3719, 3815, 3897, 4274, 4338
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4689
136th Session, 2023
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4227.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4227
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant has filed an application with the Tribunal for review of Judgment 4227. For a considerable time, the process of review was not expressly recognised in the Tribunal’s Statute, but it now is in Article VI by an amendment made by the International Labour Conference on 7 June 2016. However, the settled principles governing the process of review have been developed by the Tribunal over time and before the amendment and continue to apply. As the Tribunal most recently observed in consideration 2 of Judgment 4440: “[P]ursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are ‘final and without appeal’ and have res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated, for example, in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the 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 (see, for example, Judgments 3001, [consideration] 2, 3452, [consideration] 2, and 3473, [consideration] 3).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473, 4227, 4440
Keywords:
application for review;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[F]or the complainant to fall within the very narrowly framed grounds of review, it would have been necessary for him to establish that the factual findings of the Appeals Committee were not available on the evidence. It is not sufficient for the complainant to seek to demonstrate, as he does, that other factual findings could have been made had the evidence been viewed and assessed differently.
Keywords:
application for review;
Judgment 4657
136th Session, 2023
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed applications for interpretation and for review of Judgment 4074.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4074
Keywords:
application for interpretation; application for review; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 6
Extract:
For a considerable period, the process of review was not expressly recognised in the Tribunal’s Statute, but it now is in Article VI by an amendment made by the International Labour Conference on 7 June 2016. However, the settled principles governing the process of review have been developed by the Tribunal over time and before the amendment and continue to apply. As the Tribunal most recently observed in consideration 2 of Judgment 4440: “[P]ursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are ‘final and without appeal’ and have res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated, for example, in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, the 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 (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 4440
Keywords:
application for review;
Considerations 3-5
Extract:
[T]here is a threshold issue to be addressed, namely whether the application for review is receivable having regard to the time taken after Judgment 4074 was delivered to file the application for review. Receivability is a matter that can be raised by the Tribunal ex officio. In Judgment 1952, consideration 3, the Tribunal said that an application for review should be filed within a reasonable time. To similar effect are Judgments 3982 and 2219. In the first-mentioned of these latter cases, the period was patently unreasonable and the application was dismissed as irreceivable (and also baseless on the merits).
In this case the application for review was filed over 20 months after Judgment 4074 was delivered in public. The amounts payable under the judgment were paid, the Tribunal infers from correspondence in evidence, sometime shortly before 3 April 2019.
The Tribunal invited the applicant and the Global Fund to make submissions on the question of receivability. The central issue is whether 20 months is a reasonable time. The Global Fund effectively said it would abide by the Tribunal’s decision. The complainant’s submissions were made on 2 March 2023. He recounts that in early April 2019 he began the process of trying to obtain documents from the Global Fund he apparently hoped to use in any application for review. He had some very limited success but was mainly unsuccessful. By July 2019 it would have been apparent to the complainant that the prospect of obtaining the documents then being sought was negligible. He could have then filed the application for review. But he persisted into 2020 in making requests through channels he had not hitherto followed. The complainant made a confidential submission concerning his personal circumstances from February 2020 until September 2020. The import of this submission was that the focus of his time and energy were those personal circumstances and the making of the application for review was “forgotten”. But even accepting this is correct it does not account for a delay of approximately a year from the time the judgment was made public until these personal circumstances began to unfold. The complainant could have applied for a review, but did not in this period. Even discounting the total time following February 2020, the time taken to file the application for review was unreasonable. It is thus irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952, 2219, 3982, 4074
Keywords:
application for review; reasonable time;
Judgment 4569
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 4440.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Judgment 4474
133rd Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application to review Judgment 4360.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; due process; evidence;
Judgment 4442
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4329.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Judgment 4440
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4370.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Judgment 4436
132nd Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4221.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
