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

Omission to rule on a claim (16,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Omission to rule on a claim
Total judgments found: 6

  • Judgment 2213


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    In his application for review "the complainant contends that the Tribunal failed to rule on requests for the disclosure of documents by the organization [...] A plea that the Tribunal failed to rule on claims is related to a complainant's submissions on the merits; by contrast, decisions by the Tribunal on requests for the disclosure of documents concern the administration and appraisal of evidence and cannot, in principle, give rise to review."

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of evidence; disclosure of evidence; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a claim;



  • Judgment 2021


    90th Session, 2001
    International Office of Epizootics
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant alleges that the Tribunal has failed to rule on one of his claims in his previous case. But it was merely a plea and not a claim. "The Tribunal did not need to address that plea if it felt it was unnecessary to do so."

    Keywords:

    application for review; omission to rule on a claim; omission to rule on a plea;



  • Judgment 1952


    89th Session, 2000
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 4

    Extract:

    "Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal's judgments are final and without appeal and that they carry the authority of res judicata. It is only in quite exceptional circumstances that an application for review, although not provided for in the Statute, can be allowed: the only grounds which may be entertained are failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new facts which the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the proceedings which led to the judgment which the complainant is seeking to reverse. The application for review should also be filed within a reasonable time and the pleas put forward should be of such a nature as to affect the original ruling. [...] In the present case, the Tribunal finds that none of the grounds exist for challenging the ruling already made[: the] application for review was only filed more than one year after the adoption of the judgment that she is challenging [...] The complainant now merely calls into question the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. [A] form, which she says constitutes a new fact, had already been sent to her counsel [...] during the internal appeals procedure. [Finally, the plea] that she was not assisted effectively by her former counsel [...] does not warrant review of the Tribunal's judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1727

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; counsel; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; omission to rule on a claim; reasonable time; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;



  • Judgment 1036


    69th Session, 1990
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "The complainant says that the Tribunal did not rule on her claim to damages for 'psychological' injury. The case law recognises no special head of damages of that kind: damages may be either for material or for moral injury." Judgment 917 having expressly rejected such a claim, the complainant's allegation is unfounded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 917

    Keywords:

    application for review; omission to rule on a claim;



  • Judgment 536


    49th Session, 1982
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    the complainant contends that judgment 442 overlooked one of her claims raised in the additional claims for relief in her third complaint. "the plea fails. the tribunal gave a brief but adequate reply in paragraph 10 of its judgment when it said that it had no reason to alter its decision".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; omission to rule on a claim;



  • Judgment 442


    46th Session, 1981
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    in dismissing all the complainant's claims for relief, the tribunal rejected by implication her claims for compensation for moral prejudice. it did not pass express comment on those claims nor state its reasons for dismissing them. this failure affords a valid ground for review.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; allowance; application for review; claim; grounds; moral injury; omission to rule on a claim; refusal;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Receivable grounds for review include the following: a fact overlooked, material error, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of a new fact. The Tribunal has not had to declare in what cases such pleas will in general be allowed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; disregard of essential fact; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; omission to rule on a claim; receivability of the complaint;


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top