Judgment No. 1294

• Organization: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
• Date: 14.07.1993
• Original: English
• Judges: Ruda, Douglas, Razafindralambo
• Full judgment text - Full judgment text (french)

Decision

THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED.

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

application for review; admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law

Consideration 3

Extract:

See Judgment 442, consideration 2.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

Keywords

application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a plea; case law

Consideration 15

Extract:

"To accuse the Tribunal of misconstruing a provision of the [FAO] Manual is to charge it with a mistake of law. The plea is not an admissible one in an application for review."

Keywords

application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law

Consideration 20

Extract:

"In Judgment 447 [the Tribunal] declared, as to compensation for moral injury, that 'where the impugned decision is not unlawful such compensation is due only in exceptional circumstances'."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 447

Keywords

moral injury; case law; allowance; compensation