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)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3486
Keywords
application for review; complaint dismissed
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 complainant’s contention that the Tribunal’s 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
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 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 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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 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 Tribunal’s decision (see, for example, Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 2270, under 2, 2693, under 2, and 3197, under 4).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 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 Tribunal’s 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 complainant’s contention, it in no way implies that he signed the agreement [...] under duress. Indeed, it is perfectly natural that, given the [Organisation]’s stated intention to terminate his appointment, the complainant was led to negotiate with the Organisation’s 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
|
