Admissible grounds for review (8, 14, 15, 16, 683, 802,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Admissible grounds for review
Total judgments found: 69
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 3899
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3882.
Consideration 5
Extract:
It is determined that the grounds of review proffered by the complainant do not come within the limited grounds for reviewing a judgment as, essentially, he merely disagrees with the Tribunal’s interpretation of the facts and argues that it committed a mistake of law, neither of which constitute grounds for review under the Tribunal’s case law (see Judgment 3478, considerations 3, 4 and 6, Judgment 1529, considerations 7 and 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1529, 3478
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 3897
125th Session, 2018
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3851.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3851
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; complaint dismissed; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 3819
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3714.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In his submissions the complainant rightly recalls that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, an application for review of one of its judgments may, exceptionally, be allowed, but only on limited grounds. Indeed, the only admissible grounds for review are a failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, omission to rule on a claim and, lastly, the discovery of a new fact that the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the original proceedings (see Judgment 3333, under 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3333
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review;
Judgment 3817
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3623.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal states that judgments are final and without appeal, but that the Tribunal can nonetheless consider applications for review. Consistent precedent has it that they carry res judicata authority and may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. “The only admissible grounds therefor are 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 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. 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 Judgment 3719, under 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3719
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review;
Judgment 3816
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3571.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the basis for his application for review, the complainant contends that the Tribunal omitted to rule on the “subsidiary argument” supporting his request for conversion of his limited-term appointment. In so doing, he alleges that the Tribunal omitted to rule on a plea. However, [...] that is not an admissible ground for review in any event.
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a plea;
Judgment 3815
124th Session, 2017
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3486.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that, 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. 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 reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 3390
118th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The application for review is summarily dismissed as none of the alleged grounds calls into question the Tribunal’s decision.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
Judgment 3252
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of one year instead of three years on the basis of an adverse evaluation report.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is necessary to make clear that the Tribunal’s role is not to adjudicate on the question of whether assessments made in appraisal reports are correct or whether discretionary decisions to employ a staff member on a fixed-term contract for one or three years are correct. Discretionary decisions of these types, involving assessment and evaluation, are entrusted to the responsible officers of the international organisations within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These types of decisions can only be set aside if they involve some breach of a formal or procedural rule, there is a mistake of fact or law or some material has been overlooked, or a plainly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts, or if there is a misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, consideration 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; discretion; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; performance report; procedural flaw; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 3197
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the application for review of Judgment 2946, as there was no new fact giving rise to review.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"[A]s provided in Article VI of the Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are final. Accordingly, they are subject to the application of the principle of res judicata and will only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances and on limited grounds. That is, “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 [earlier] proceedings” (see Judgment 1952, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 3078
112th Session, 2012
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal may review an earlier judgment on the basis of discovery of a new fact, provided it was discovered too late to be decided in the original proceedings and that it could not have been discovered with due diligence at the time of the earlier proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 3000
110th Session, 2011
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Application for review of Judgment 2854.
"The grounds on which the Tribunal may review a judgment are set out in Judgment 442, under 3, as follows: 'an omission to take account of particular facts; a material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which, unlike a mistake in appraisal of the facts, involves no exercise of judgment; an omission to pass judgment on a claim; and the discovery of a so called 'new' fact, i.e. a fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings.' The ground on which review is sought must be one that would have led to a different result in the earlier proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review;
Judgment 2998
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Application for review of Judgment 2653.
"The grounds on which the Tribunal may review a judgment are set out in Judgment 442, under 3, as follows: 'an omission to take account of particular facts; a material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which, unlike a mistake in appraisal of the facts, involves no exercise of judgment; an omission to pass judgment on a claim; and the discovery of a so called 'new' fact, i.e. a fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings.' An application for review will not be granted unless the matter relied upon as a ground for review is such as to affect the Tribunal's decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 2653
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review;
Judgment 2993
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal will review an earlier judgment on the basis of discovery of a 'new' fact, but only if it was 'discovered too late to [be] cite[d] in the original proceedings' (see Judgment 442, under 3 and 13). However, the question whether a fact is 'new' is always whether it could, with diligence, have been discovered at the time of the earlier proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 2987
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
Application for review of Judgment 2786.
"It is well established that the Tribunal's judgments may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on the grounds of '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 [earlier] proceedings' (see Judgment 1952, under 3).
Although the complainant frames his request for review in terms of a failure to take into account certain facts, he refers to no facts that were overlooked by the Tribunal. In effect, the request is based on his disagreement with the outcome. It follows that the application must be dismissed in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952, 2786
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review;
Judgment 2937
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently accepted as a ground for review of its judgments 'material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which, unlike a mistake in appraisal of the facts, involves no exercise of judgment' (see Judgment 2586 and the cases cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2586
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; material error;
Judgment 2816
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Consistent precedent has it that: «Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court permit an application for review of a judgment of the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal may therefore declare such an application receivable only in quite exceptional circumstances, for example when new facts of decisive importance have come to light since the date of the judgment.» (See in particular Judgment 350.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 350, 2580
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; receivability of the complaint; summary dismissal;
Judgment 2693
104th Session, 2008
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments have the authority of res judicata. They will be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on limited grounds. These grounds include the discovery of a new fact. A new fact is a fact on which the party claiming it was unable to rely through no fault of its own; it must be a material fact likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8 and 2270, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 1504, 2270
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; definition; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; limits; misconduct; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 2270
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As is clear from Judgment 442, a Tribunal judgment is res judicata and will only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances including, for example, omission to take account of a fact or the discovery of a 'new' fact. Of course, even in such cases, review will not be granted if the fact in question does not bear on the judgment given. In other words, a fact must be a 'material fact' before the Tribunal will review a judgment on the ground of discovery of a new fact or on the ground that a fact has been overlooked."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 2213
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6(a)
Extract:
The Tribunal had dismissed the complaint by which the complainant impugned the non-renewal of his appointment. In his application for review of that judgment, he submits that a post intended for him had been mentioned in the draft programme and budget and that, since the document had been approved as it stood by the General Conference, this implied his appointment to the post at issue. "The question arises as to whether such an argument affords grounds for review. It is not necessary to answer that question, considering that the fact does not appear to be decisive, since the adoption of a budget could [...] not be interpreted as a decision to make an appointment."
Keywords:
acceptance; admissible grounds for review; application for review; appointment; assignment; consequence; contract; decision; executive body; inadmissible grounds for review; interpretation; non-renewal of contract; post;
Judgment 2021
90th Session, 2001
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Lack of impartiality in a tribunal is a serious matter and an allegation of this sort should be neither made nor taken lightly. It is, like any other breach of the principles of natural justice, a proper ground for seeking review of a judgment."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; bias; burden of proof; general principle;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
