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

Mistake of law (567,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Mistake of law
Total judgments found: 31

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4129


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3893.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he plea of a mistake of law is not an admissible ground for review (see Judgment 1529, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1529

    Keywords:

    inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;



  • Judgment 3987


    126th Session, 2018
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3913.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The gravamen of the application for review involves a contention that the Tribunal disregarded the fundamental facts of the case and, in the result, the amount ordered by way of damages was far too low. Indeed it is contended that the “complainant felt such paltry amounts to be rather insulting rather than compensatory”. But in substance, the complainant is simply challenging the assessment by the Tribunal of the damages which should be awarded, and that matter is res judicata unless an error is established of the type which can found a review. No such error is identified.

    Keywords:

    mistake of law;



  • Judgment 3934


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Although the complaint of moral harassment which the complainant had filed against the Director of the Office was the subject of separate proceedings, in his appeal against the decision not to extend his appointment the complainant also alleged that that decision stemmed from a wish to discriminate and retaliate against him which itself formed part of the harassment. [...] [I]n its opinion of 11 July 2014 the Appeals Board noted, before recommending that his appeal be dismissed, that “[t]he allegations on discrimination, harassment and punitiveness [were] the subject matters of another appeal and they [would] be decided on in [another] case brought before the Appeals Board” by the complainant.
    In adopting that approach, the Appeals Board committed an error of law. If those allegations had proved to be well founded, they would have substantiated the existence of flaws rendering the contested decision unlawful; hence the Appeals Board could not properly recommend that the aforementioned decision be confirmed without first having determined whether they were valid.

    Keywords:

    harassment; internal appeal; mistake of law; procedure;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The impugned decision of 13 August 2014 is based on the opinion delivered by the Appeals Board, which the Director-General simply endorsed. That decision is hence tainted by the same error of law (for similar cases, see Judgments 2742, under 40, 2892, under 14, and 3490, under 18).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2892, 3490

    Keywords:

    final decision; internal appeals body; mistake of law; report;



  • Judgment 3905


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    It is evident that, in its report of 22 February 2016, the Appeals Board viewed the notification of the abolition of the complainant’s position and the termination of his appointment in the letter of 16 June as the communication of a single decision. This was a fundamental error of law. Decisions to abolish a post and terminate an appointment are separate and distinct decisions.

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; internal appeals body; mistake of law; termination;



  • Judgment 3490


    120th Session, 2015
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her request for retroactive reclassification of her former post.

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "It follows from the JAB’s failure to obtain and consider evidence central to the claim that its conclusion and recommendation are tainted by an error of law. As the Director General adopted the conclusion and accepted the recommendation, his decision is also tainted by an error of law (see Judgment 2742, under 40)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742

    Keywords:

    final decision; mistake of law;



  • Judgment 2029


    90th Session, 2001
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considérant 4

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal will [...] consider whether the Organization's pleas fall within the admissible grounds for review. The FAO submits that in interpreting the rules on the recruitment of professional staff the Tribunal made an error of law which voids Article VIII(3) of the FAO Constitution of all substance and disregards the Director-General's discretionary authority. Such an allegation calls into question the Tribunal's legal reasoning. To allow review of the interpretation of [the] rules [at issue] would render meaningless the principle that the Tribunal's judgments are final and immediately acquire the authority of res judicata. It would also allow its judgments to be questioned systematically by complainants who are dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision."

    Keywords:

    application for review; finality of judgment; mistake of law; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1529


    81st Session, 1996
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 and 8

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 442 [...] and in many later judgments the Tribunal has declared an alleged mistake of law to be an inadmissible plea for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds that the Tribunal's legal reasoning was wrong would be to let anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision question it indefinitely in disregard of the res judicata rule. [...] The application must be summarily dismissed as clearly irreceivable under Article 7 of the Tribunal's Rules."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; finality of judgment; iloat statute; mistake of law; res judicata; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 1507


    81st Session, 1996
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "According to consistent precedent the Tribunal will allow an application for review only in exceptional cases. Its judgments are, as Article VI of its Statute says, 'final and without appeal' and carry the authority of res judicata. Admissible grounds for review are strictly limited: failure to take account of a material fact, an error of fact which involves no exercise of judgment, failure to rule on a claim, and the discovery of a new fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the plea must be such as to affect the original ruling: see Judgment 1255 [...] under 2." Inadmissible pleas for review are a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, a wrong appraisal of the facts and failure to rule on pleas: see, for example, Judgment 442 [...], also under 2."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1255

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of evidence; finality of judgment; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1353


    77th Session, 1994
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    See Judgments 442 and 1309.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1309

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1309


    76th Session, 1994
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    See Judgments 442 and 704, consideration 2.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application filed by the organisation; application for review; case law; exception; general principle; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; organisation; res judicata;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The defendant Organization is seeking review of a judgment on the grounds that the Tribunal's interpretation of one of UNESCO's rules overlooked well-established practice. The Tribunal interpreted that provision as it saw fit. "What the Organization is seeking is review on the grounds of an alleged mistake of law, and that is not an admissible plea for review."

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; practice;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "In sum, according to the principles that the Tribunal consistently abides by in ruling on [applications for review], UNESCO's allegations do not amount to admissible pleas for review [...] The Tribunal therefore summarily dismisses the Organization's application as being clearly irreceivable within the meaning of Article 8(3) of the rules of court."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 8(3) OF THE RULES

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 1294


    75th Session, 1993
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has often said, only in exceptional circumstances will it entertain an application for review. There are several pleas in favour of review that it will not admit. They are an alleged mistake of law, an alleged mistake in the appraisal of the facts, failure to admit evidence and absence of comment on the parties' pleas. "Other pleas in favour of review may be admitted if they are such as to affect the Tribunal's decision. They include an omission to take account of essential facts; a material error...; an omission to rule on a claim; and the emergence of a so-called 'new' fact, i.e. a fact that the complainant discovered too late to be able to cite in the original proceedings."

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "To accuse the Tribunal of misconstruing a provision of the [FAO] Manual is to charge it with a mistake of law. The plea is not an admissible one in an application for review."

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;



  • Judgment 1178


    73rd Session, 1992
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's rulings carry the authority of res judicata. An application for review will succeed only in exceptional cases and several pleas in favour of review will not be entertained at all. They include an alleged mistake of law [...] other pleas in favour of review may be entertained if they are such as to affect the ruling. they include an omission to take account of particular facts".

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; mistake of law; res judicata;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    What [the complainant] is alleging [...] is disregard, not of facts, but of legal provisions. To misread [the Staff Regulations and the Convention] would amount to a mistake of law, and that does not afford admissible grounds for review.

    Keywords:

    mistake of law;



  • Judgment 1174


    73rd Session, 1992
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "What [the complainant] is alleging is a mistake of law, and that does not afford admissible grounds for review. If it did, a party who was dissatisfied with a ruling might go on challenging it in defiance of the res judicata rule."

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of law; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1165


    73rd Session, 1992
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has time and again affirmed, its judgments have the force of res judicata and may not ordinarily be challenged. Only in exceptional cases will they be subject to review, on the grounds of failure to take account of essential facts, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the discovery of an essential fact the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings."

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1036


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

    Consideration 7, Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant argues that material errors "misled the Tribunal". In Judgment 917 the Tribunal held that she had no right in law to a professional category post. She contends that FAO Rules provide for making good the lack of a university degree with proper experience and that she did qualify in law for such a post. But that is an alleged mistake of law, and not of fact; as such it does not constitute admissible grounds for review.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 917

    Keywords:

    application for review; material error; mistake of law;



  • Judgment 980


    66th Session, 1989
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The complainant is in fact asking the Tribunal to change its mind about its interpretation of the rules. The reasons he puts forward are essentially that its judgment showed misappraisal of the facts and a mistake in law in interpreting the rules and failed to endorse his own interpretation. Those are not admissible grounds for review."

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of facts; inadmissible grounds for review; interpretation; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law;



  • Judgment 979


    66th Session, 1989
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant's application "merely alleges misinterpretation of the EPO's Service Regulations and guidelines. That is an assertion of error of law which, according to the long-established case-law, does not constitute valid grounds for review".

    Keywords:

    application for review; interpretation; mistake of law;



  • Judgment 948


    65th Session, 1988
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The purpose of the present application is to get the Tribunal to change its mind by seeking to refute its reasoning and show the case law it cited to be irrelevant. What he is alleging is a mistake of law, and that does not constitute admissible grounds for review."

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of law;



  • Judgment 898


    64th Session, 1988
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The claims are irreceivable because "they are a pointless attempt to get review of decisions that the Tribunal ruled on in Judgments 732 and 733. [...] [The complainant is] pleading misinterpretation of the text, and that would be a mistake of law, which is not an admissible reason for reviewing a text that carries the authority of res judicata."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 732, 733

    Keywords:

    application for review; interpretation; mistake of law; res judicata; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 749


    59th Session, 1986
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    To allow review on the grounds that the Tribunal's legal reasoning was mistaken would be to encourage the dissatisfied party to go on challenging the judgment indefinitely in disregard of the res judicata rule. The Tribunal so held in Judgment 681, in which it declined to consider criticisms of its original reasoning: the complainant's plea was a mistake of law and it was inadmissible.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 681

    Keywords:

    mistake of law;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top