New fact (839,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: New fact
Total judgments found: 8

• 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 8

  Extract:

  Lastly, the complainant relies on an allegedly new fact. Though the existence of a new fact may indeed afford grounds for review, the fact must date from before the judgment and be such as would have affected the ruling had the Tribunal known of it in time (see Judgments 4440, consideration 8, 3561, consideration 5, and 1545, consideration 5). In this case, the Tribunal fails to see, in any event, how the factual details provided by the complainant would have led it to decide differently on the claims that were submitted to it in the complaints leading to Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1545, 3561, 4440, 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584, 4732
  

  Keywords:

  admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; new fact;
  

  
  
  

• 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 9

  Extract:

  Though the discovery of a new fact may indeed afford grounds for review, the fact must date from before the judgment and be such as would have affected the ruling had the Tribunal known of it in time (see Judgments 4440, consideration 8, and 1545, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1545, 4440
  

  Keywords:

  admissible grounds for review; new fact;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4682

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for post reclassification.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  Neither could Judgment 3907 be regarded as a new fact justifying an exception to the time limits for filing a complaint. The Tribunal’s case law states that, since time limits are an objective matter of fact, any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. In particular, the fact that a complainant may have discovered a new fact showing that the impugned decision is unlawful only after the expiry of the time limit for submitting an appeal is not in principle a reason to deem her or his complaint receivable. It is true that, notwithstanding these rules, the Tribunal’s case law allows an employee, concerned by an administrative decision which has become final, to ask the Administration for review, either when some new and previously unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or when the employee is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which she or he was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken. However, the fact that, after the expiry of the time limit for appealing against a decision, the Tribunal has rendered a judgment on the lawfulness of a similar decision in another case, does not come within the scope of these exceptions (see Judgment 3002, considerations 13 and 14). Only under very special circumstances, did the Tribunal accept that the delivery of one of its judgments could be described as a new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance, within the meaning of the above-cited case law and could therefore have the effect of reopening the time limit within which a complainant could lodge an appeal (see Judgment 676).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 676, 3002, 3907
  

  Keywords:

  new fact; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  Si l’existence d’un fait nouveau peut certes servir de base à un recours en révision, ce fait doit être antérieur au jugement et doit être tel qu’il eût été de nature à avoir une influence sur celui-ci si le Tribunal en avait eu connaissance (voir le jugement 1545, au considérant 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1545
  

  Keywords:

  admissible grounds for review; new fact;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The case law states that, though the discovery of a new fact may afford grounds for review, the fact must date from before the material judgment and be such that it would have affected the ruling had the Tribunal known of it in time (see Judgment 1545, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1545
  

  Keywords:

  admissible grounds for review; new fact;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4374

  
  131st Session, 2021
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions to abolish their posts and terminate their appointments.

  Considerations 7-8

  Extract:

  The question of whether a judgment of the Tribunal may be considered as a new fact providing an exception to the time limits for lodging an appeal was dealt with in Judgment 3002. In particular, the Tribunal found in considerations 13 to 15 of that judgment that:
  “13. [T]ime limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, because any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. In particular, the fact that a complainant may have discovered a new fact showing that the impugned decision is unlawful only after the expiry of the time limit for submitting an appeal is not in principle a reason to deem his or her complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgments 602, under 3, 1466, under 5 and 6, or 2821, under 8).
  14. It is true that, notwithstanding these rules, the Tribunal’s case law allows an employee concerned by an administrative decision which has become final to ask the Administration for review either when some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or else when the employee is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he/she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken (see Judgments 676, under 1, 2203, under 7, or 2722, under 4). However, the fact that, after the expiry of the time limit for appealing against a decision, the Tribunal has rendered a judgment on the lawfulness of a similar decision in another case, does not come within the scope of these exceptions.
  15. In particular, in the instant case, the complainant’s argument that the delivery of Judgment 2359 constitutes a new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance, within the meaning of the above-cited case law, is to no avail. In Judgment 676 the Tribunal did accept that the delivery of one of its judgments could be described in these terms and could therefore have the effect of reopening the time limit within which a complainant could lodge an appeal. But the circumstances of the case were very special in that the Tribunal, in previous judgments which it cited in that case, had formulated a rule which had greatly altered the position of certain staff members of an organisation and which, although already applied by the organisation, had until then not been published or communicated to the staff members concerned. No exceptional circumstances of this nature exist in the instant case where the criticism expressed in Judgment 2359 of the conditions set by the Office for the recognition of a dependent child – which moreover confirmed the soundness of the complainant’s own criticism in this respect – cannot be regarded as unforeseeable.”
  
  The Tribunal underlines that established time limits, which render a decision immune from challenge if they are not observed, are fundamental to the stability of the legal relations between the parties and, accordingly, to the entire legal system of international organizations. Without time limits, there can be no stability, thus undermining the principle of legal certainty of the entire system (see, for example, Judgments 3704, consideration 3, 3795, consideration 4, and 4184, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3002, 3704, 3795, 4184
  

  Keywords:

  late appeal; new fact; time bar;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4112

  
  127th Session, 2019
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests retroactively his promotions.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The approach of the [Internal Appeals Committee] and the complainant involves a misconception about the width of the principle concerning “new facts” which allows for some flexibility with the strict application of time limits. The principle is only engaged when the new fact or facts relate directly to and impact upon the decision which the complainant sought to challenge out of time. In the present case, the operative administrative decisions with direct legal effect were the promotion decisions. The fact or facts identified by the [Internal Appeals Committee] did not relate directly to nor impacted upon the promotion decisions. They were nothing more than facts evidencing an emerging environment concerning and manifesting the inadequacies of the career arrangements then operating in the EPO.

  Keywords:

  internal procedure; new fact;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3244

  
  115th Session, 2013
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant applies for review of Judgment 2975 relating to termination of her employment, relying on a new fact.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  application for review; complaint dismissed; new fact; summary procedure;