ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > european convention on human rights

Judgment No. 3815

Decision

The application for review is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3486.

Judgment keywords

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3486

Keywords

application for review

Consideration 3

Extract:

Article V of its Statute clearly permits the Tribunal to agree or decline to hold oral proceedings. It is therefore open to the Tribunal, if it considers it appropriate, to dismiss a request for oral proceedings (see, inter alia, Judgments 3779, under 3, and 3780, under 3).
The complainantís contention that the Tribunalís prerogative not to hold oral proceedings violates the European Convention on Human Rights is irrelevant. Apart from the fact that this contention appears unfounded, the Convention is not in any event applicable as such to international organisations within the legal system to which the Tribunal belongs (see, for example, Judgments 2236, under 11, 2611, under 8, or 2662, under 12).
In the present case, in view of the extensive and detailed submissions and evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal considers that it is fully informed about the issues raised by this application for review and does not therefore deem it necessary to hold oral proceedings.

Reference(s)

ILOAT reference: Article V of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2236, 2611, 2662, 3779, 3780

Keywords

oral proceedings; european convention on human rights

Consideration 4

Extract:

Consistent precedent has it that, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunalís judgments are ďfinal and without appealĒ 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

Consideration 6

Extract:

The notion of a new fact, within the meaning of the [...] case law, applies to a fact which not only could not be relied on in the original proceedings by the party concerned, for a reason outside its control, but is also of material importance and would have influenced the Tribunalís decision (see, for example, Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 2270, under 2, 2693, under 2, and 3197, under 4).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 2270, 2693, 3197

Keywords

new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings

Consideration 8

Extract:

[I]t is patently obvious that the various documents on which the complainant bases his application for review do not contain any information of material importance that would have influenced the Tribunalís decision had he produced them during the original proceedings.

Keywords

new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings

Consideration 9

Extract:

The documents do demonstrate that the complainant vehemently wished to remain at the [Organisation], if at all possible, rather than having to separate from service. However, that unsurprising fact was already apparent from the written evidence submitted to the Tribunal in the original proceedings and, contrary to the complainantís contention, it in no way implies that he signed the agreement [...] under duress. Indeed, it is perfectly natural that, given the [Organisation]ís stated intention to terminate his appointment, the complainant was led to negotiate with the Organisationís officials with a view to drawing up a balanced agreement on the conditions of his departure.

Keywords

duress

Consideration 12

Extract:

The [Organisation] submits that the application is clearly vexatious.
The Tribunal shares that opinion, but since the defendant has not submitted a counterclaim for an order against the complainant on this basis, it cannot issue an order to that effect in this judgment.

Keywords

vexatious complaint; counterclaim



 
Last updated: 27.07.2017 ^ top