Judgment No. 4198
The application for review is dismissed.
The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4004.
application for review
Consistent precedent has it that a judgment of the Tribunal may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The rationale for this was stated, for example, in Judgment 3899, consideration 3, as follows:
“[P]ursuant 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).”
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473, 3899
admissible grounds for review; summary procedure
The complainant [...] argues that the Tribunal committed a material error when it concluded [...] that he had not provided cogent evidence that the decisions to abolish his post and terminate his service were taken in breach of his right to equal treatment. This, however, is an inadmissible ground for review as the arguments and the evidence which the complainant presents to support it merely invite the Tribunal to reconsider its finding on this issue on the ground that it has, in effect, misinterpreted the facts.
inadmissible grounds for review; material error