Judgment No. 3982
This application for review is dismissed.
The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 96.
Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that “[j]udgments shall be final and without appeal. The Tribunal may nevertheless consider applications for [...] review of a judgment.” Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal’s judgments may be reviewed only in exceptional cases and on strictly limited grounds which must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, 3473, under 3, 3634, under 4, and 3721, under 2). Moreover, the case law requires that an application for review be filed within a reasonable time in fairness to both parties (see Judgments 788, 2219, under 2, and 2693, under 4).
In this case, on 30 November 2017 the complainant filed an application for review of a judgment delivered on 11 October 1966, in other words more than 51 years earlier. The Tribunal considers that the interval between these two dates constitutes an unreasonable period of time which cannot be justified by reliance on the recent amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal. Indeed, this amendment has no bearing on that period, since the Tribunal had already recognised the possibility of filing an application for review long before this was expressly provided for in its Statute (see Judgment 442, defining the theoretical bases for such an application). Indeed, the Tribunal considered that its judicial role necessarily required it to entertain such applications in order fully to dispose of the cases brought to it (see Judgment 3003, under 28).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 2219, 2693, 3001, 3003, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3721
application for review; time-limit for filing an application for review
ILOAT Judgment(s): 96
application for review