|
|
 |
|
|
Omission to rule on a plea (17,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Omission to rule on a plea
Total judgments found: 9
Judgment 4569
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 4440.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the Tribunal omitted to rule on three of the claims made in his application for review of Judgment 4370 and on the three claims to which he drew particular attention in his first complaint. However, here the complainant is in fact referring to pleas that he entered in his submissions and not to claims. [A]n omission to rule on a plea does not, in any event, constitute a receivable ground for review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4370
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a plea;
Judgment 3816
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3571.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the basis for his application for review, the complainant contends that the Tribunal omitted to rule on the “subsidiary argument” supporting his request for conversion of his limited-term appointment. In so doing, he alleges that the Tribunal omitted to rule on a plea. However, [...] that is not an admissible ground for review in any event.
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a plea;
Judgment 3619
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of her internal appeal against the decisions not to convert her fixed-term contract into a permanent contract and not to select her for a vacant permanent post.
Consideration 20
Extract:
The complainant’s arguments on these issues involved no more than a very brief tabulation of the conclusions of the IAC which was said to be “incorporated by reference” into the complainant’s legal brief and a “[maintenance] of [the] argumentation as presented during the internal appeal procedure”. This is an entirely unacceptable way of presenting an argument to the Tribunal and creates the real risk that the Tribunal will not appreciate the arguments advanced (see, for example, Judgments 3434, under 5, 2264, under 3(a) [Recte: (e)], and 3538, under 5). The Tribunal will thus focus on the conclusions of the IAC favourable to the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264, 3434, 3538
Keywords:
judicial review; omission to rule on a plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3434
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the EPO had correctly concluded that the complainant was not entitled to the reimbursement he claimed for the school fees of his children.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is observed that the submissions that are contained in the brief supporting the complaint refer in part to explanations and submissions which were provided in other documents. On previous occasions, the Tribunal drew attention to Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, which states that arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself, supplemented in the rejoinder if necessary. It was stated in Judgment 2264, under 3(e), for example, that those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, as that would be contrary to the Rules and would render it difficult for the other party to clearly understand the complainant’s pleas. Such references are acceptable only as illustrations. This is particularly so where, as in the present case, the annexes are bulky but are not helpfully demarcated to facilitate identification.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264
Keywords:
complaint; judicial review; omission to rule on a plea; receivability of the complaint;
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 1294
75th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgment 442, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
application for review; case law; inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a plea;
Judgment 912
64th Session, 1988
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
"The Tribunal dismissed [the complainant's] first two claims to relief and ruled that consequently the other two failed as well: it therefore ruled on all her claims. But what she is in fact alleging is that the Tribunal failed to rule on her plea that the Administration had not based its decision on the desk audit.
[F]ailure to rule on a plea does not afford admissible grounds for review. But in any event the complainant is mistaken. Implicit in the Tribunal's ruling was a decision that failure by the Administration to base its decision on the desk audit was not unlawful. The Tribunal therefore did not omit to rule on the fourth plea."
Keywords:
application for review; omission to rule on a plea;
Judgment 604
52nd Session, 1984
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The judgment "gave a comprehensive answer to the complainant's claims. [...] In the circumstances that was an adequate answer. Since [...] an application for review is an exceptional procedure and a derogation from res judicata, a comprehensive answer is quite proper: the Tribunal need not answer every single argument once it has taken the view that the application is irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442, 536
Keywords:
application for review; omission to rule on a plea;
Judgment 504
48th Session, 1982
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
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."
Keywords:
application for review; enforcement; omission to rule on a plea; provision; staff regulations and rules;
|
|
|
|
|
