Judgment No. 504
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
"The complainant accuses the Director-General of complicity and dishonesty. These accusations rest on facts of which he was in any event aware when he made his first application for review and they cannot now constitute an admissible plea for review."
application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings
A staff rule "is a rule, not a fact in the legal sense of the term. thus to omit reference to it would [...] be [...] possibly to commit a mistake of law. An allegation of mistake of law does not afford grounds for review."
application for review; mistake of law
The argument concerning the application of a provision "affords no grounds whatever for reviewing the original judgment". The complainant refers to the provision in the memorandum appended to his initial complaint. Thus, far from being in itself a claim for relief, the argument was "merely a plea in support of his claims. Even if the Tribunal did not comment on the argument, it did not disregard a claim for relief. Besides, it stated that there was no need to rely on [the provision]; thus it did not disregard the rule."
application for review; omission to rule on a plea; staff regulations and rules; enforcement; provision
The complainant alleges that there is a material error in the consideration concerning the classification of a post of Judgment no. 325. The plea fails. "In commenting on the grade of the post [...] the Tribunal chose between conflicting views. It made, not just a finding of fact, but an appraisal of evidence on a matter in dispute, and under the case law such appraisal does not afford grounds for review."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 325
application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts