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 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 1825
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments are final and binding. They are not subject to appeal. The Tribunal will not entertain applications for revision or review except in the most unusual circumstances such as fraud or the discovery of conclusive new evidence which could not have been brought forward before. The stability of judicial procedures and the need to bring an end to litigation require that parties must accept the result they obtain even when they are unsatisfied with it. Where both parties have had a full opportunity to present their case and where no new and previously undiscoverable factual element is brought forward the principle of res judicata prevents the reopening and rearguing of cases already decided."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; evidence; finality of judgment; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1507
81st Session, 1996
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent the Tribunal will allow an application for review only in exceptional cases. Its judgments are, as Article VI of its Statute says, 'final and without appeal' and carry the authority of res judicata. Admissible grounds for review are strictly limited: failure to take account of a material fact, an error of fact which involves no exercise of judgment, failure to rule on a claim, and the discovery of a new fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the plea must be such as to affect the original ruling: see Judgment 1255 [...] under 2." Inadmissible pleas for review are a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, a wrong appraisal of the facts and failure to rule on pleas: see, for example, Judgment 442 [...], also under 2."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1255
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of evidence; finality of judgment; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1421
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgment 442, considerations 2 and 3
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;
Judgment 1353
77th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
See Judgments 442 and 1309.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1309
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1348
77th Session, 1994
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant "has not pleaded any of the grounds on which an application for review will be entertained and which are set out, for example, in Judgments 442 [...] and 704 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 1309
76th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgments 442 and 704, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application filed by the organisation; application for review; case law; exception; general principle; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; organisation; res judicata;
Judgment 1294
75th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has often said, only in exceptional circumstances will it entertain an application for review. There are several pleas in favour of review that it will not admit. They are an alleged mistake of law, an alleged mistake in the appraisal of the facts, failure to admit evidence and absence of comment on the parties' pleas. "Other pleas in favour of review may be admitted if they are such as to affect the Tribunal's decision. They include an omission to take account of essential facts; a material error...; an omission to rule on a claim; and the emergence of a so-called 'new' fact, i.e. a fact that the complainant discovered too late to be able to cite in the original proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 1255
75th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Judgments are 'final and without appeal' according to Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal and they carry the authority of res judicata. The Tribunal will therefore entertain an application for review only in quite exceptional circumstances. As it has stated many times, and in detail in Judgment 442 [...], the admissible grounds for review of a judgment are strictly limited: they are failure to take account of some material fact, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new essential fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the applicant's plea must be such as to affect the original ruling."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; iloat statute; res judicata;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The complainants dispute the Tribunal's finding in Judgment 1190, under 15, that no breach of the methodology which they were relying on had caused them any injury. [...] Since Judgment 1190 therefore shows a mistake of fact, it is subject to review in that respect".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1190
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; mistake of fact; res judicata;
Judgment 1252
75th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal's rulings "have the force of res judicata and may not ordinarily be challenged. only in exceptional circumstances will they be subject to review, on the grounds of failure to take account of some essential fact, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the later discovery of some essential fact that the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 1178
73rd Session, 1992
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's rulings carry the authority of res judicata. An application for review will succeed only in exceptional cases and several pleas in favour of review will not be entertained at all. They include an alleged mistake of law [...] other pleas in favour of review may be entertained if they are such as to affect the ruling. they include an omission to take account of particular facts".
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1174
73rd Session, 1992
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As the Tribunal said in Judgment 1036, only in exceptional circumstances will it entertain an application for review since to allow one is to derogate from the res judicata rule. What is more, the complainant may not submit the same pleas more than once: the Tribunal will entertain in the context of her present application only the pleas that she was unable to put forward in support of the earlier one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1036
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; res judicata;
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 1060
70th Session, 1991
African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant has four pleas in support of his application for review of Judgment 1003: a material error, his discovery of new facts, the disregard of particular facts and failure to rule on his claims. Consideration of his pleas led the Tribunal to conclude that his application was an idle attempt at challenging a ruling that has the authority of res judicata.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1003
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 1059
70th Session, 1991
African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3, Summary
Extract:
The complainant relies on provisions in the Convention on the establishment of the organisation's component bodies which he regards as new facts that warrant the review of Judgment 1002. Those provisions can scarcely be treated as new facts since the complainant obviously did not learn about them after the Tribunal's ruling.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1002
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 1036
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Whereas an alleged omission to take account of a particular fact is an admissible plea in favour of review, an alleged misappraisal of the facts is not. Another inadmissible ground is an alleged mistake of law. Furthermore, an application based on the admission of new evidence may be entertained provided that the complainant discovered that evidence too late to be able to cite it in the original pleadings and provided that it is relevant."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of facts; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Judgment 980
66th Session, 1989
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments carry the authority of res judicata and it will review them only in exceptional cases. It will not review on the grounds of an alleged mistake of law or misappraisal of the facts or because it had failed to comment on all the pleas submitted by the parties. A review may be permitted where there was an omission of fact involving no exercise of judgment - as distinct from a mistaken appraisal of the facts - an omission to rule on a claim or the discovery of a 'new' fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 950
65th Session, 1988
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"To justify review, there must be evidence of some exceptional circumstance, such as accident or inadvertence, cogent enough to displace the principle of finality of judgment."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception; res judicata;
Judgment 912
64th Session, 1988
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"There are several pleas for review which the Tribunal will entertain provided that its judgment was affected, and they include a material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which involves no exercise of judgment [unlike a mistake in appraisal of facts, which involves exercise of judgment]."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; material error;
Judgment 749
59th Session, 1986
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant accuses the Tribunal of having disregarded specific facts. As there is no evidence to support his assertions, the application is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 588, 645, 681
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of facts;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
