|
|
 |
|
|
Misinterpretation of the facts (757,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Misinterpretation of the facts
Total judgments found: 9
Judgment 3983
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for review of Judgments 3508, 3628, 3710, 3711, 3712, 3778, 3779 and 3780.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he plea that the Tribunal misinterpreted the evidence in the file does not constitute an admissible ground for review.
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts;
Judgment 1751
85th Session, 1998
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
What the complainant sees as a mistaken statement of fact or fundamental fault is a finding of fact made by the Tribunal on all the relevant evidence before it. As it held in Judgment 442 [...] and has held many times since, the Tribunal will not allow review on the grounds of an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation it has put on the evidence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
misinterpretation of the facts;
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 980
66th Session, 1989
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant is in fact asking the Tribunal to change its mind about its interpretation of the rules. The reasons he puts forward are essentially that its judgment showed misappraisal of the facts and a mistake in law in interpreting the rules and failed to endorse his own interpretation. Those are not admissible grounds for review."
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; inadmissible grounds for review; interpretation; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law;
Judgment 649
55th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant is alleging misinterpretation of a statement by a supervisor. That would amount to misappraisal of evidence, and the plea is inadmissible."
Keywords:
appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"A judgment carries the force of res judicata from the date on which it is handed down. Though it is subject to review thereafter, the Tribunal will review it only in exceptional circumstances. Some pleas in support of an application for review, such as misappraisal of evidence, are inadmissible. Others, such as material error or the discovery of new facts, are not; but for the application to succeed they must be such as to affect the decision."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; exception; judgment of the tribunal; misinterpretation of the facts; res judicata;
Judgment 593
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not allow review on the grounds of an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts."
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court provide for review of the Tribunal's judgments. Although an application for review may nevertheless be entertained, only certain pleas will be admitted. In particular, an alleged mistake of law affords no grounds for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata."
Keywords:
application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law; no provision;
Judgment 579
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to its case law ,the Tribunal will not allow review on the grounds of an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts; nor is failure to admit evidence a valid reason for review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 531
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The grounds upon which the complainant seeks review, viz. the error of his being placed by the Selection Committee in [a particular category], the failure of the Selection Committee to screen his case properly and the refusal of the Tribunal to summon witnesses whom the complainant did not call at the hearing by the [Internal Appeal Board], are not grounds for review."
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts; oral proceedings; refusal; tribunal;
Judgment 504
48th Session, 1982
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant alleges that there is a material error in the consideration concerning the classification of a post of Judgment no. 325. The plea fails. "In commenting on the grade of the post [...] the Tribunal chose between conflicting views. It made, not just a finding of fact, but an appraisal of evidence on a matter in dispute, and under the case law such appraisal does not afford grounds for review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 325
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;
Judgment 442
46th Session, 1981
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2 and 8(B)
Extract:
Among inadmissible grounds for review is alleged mistaken appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts. Parties who are dissatisfied with a decision may not question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; definition; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; misinterpretation of the facts; res judicata;
|
|
|
|
|
