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

Application for review (7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 683, 802, 12, 13, 9, 11, 17, 567, 757, 754, 803,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Application for review
Total judgments found: 149

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >

  • Judgment 4199


    128th Session, 2019
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4022.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4198


    128th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4004.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 4175


    128th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3932.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    It is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds therefor are a failure to take account of material facts, a material error (in other words, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, which thus differs from misinterpretation of the facts), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, the pleas or grounds on which review is sought must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As to the award of costs, the complainant’s disagreement with the amount of the award is not a ground on which a judgment is subject to review.

    Keywords:

    application for review; costs;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 4133


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3956.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    In his application for review of Judgment 3956, the complainant submits that the Tribunal made a mistake of fact involving no exercise of judgement and failed to take into account particular facts. Referring to Judgment 3819, he points out that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, these are admissible grounds for review. It should be noted that the case law also establishes that, in order to be admissible, such pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgment 3333, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3333, 3819, 3956

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; mistake of fact;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of fact; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4132


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3955.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    In his application for review of Judgment 3955, the complainant alleges that particular facts were not taken into account by the Tribunal. Referring to Judgment 3819, he points out that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, failure to take account of particular facts is an admissible ground for review. It should be noted that the case law also establishes that, in order to be admissible, such a plea must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgment 3333, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3333, 3819, 3955

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; failure to take account of material facts;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; failure to take account of material facts; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4130


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3970.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; material error; summary procedure;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that, pursuant to Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal, the latter’s judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry the authority of res judicata. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated 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 on which the complainant was unable to rely 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, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, and 3473, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; summary procedure;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry 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 on which the author of the application was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).
    The amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal introduced in 2016 in order to recognise the parties’ right to file an application for review has no bearing on the grounds on which such applications may be admitted according to the case law cited above.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4127


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3994.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant also bases her application for review on the discovery of new facts on which she argues that she was unable to rely in the original proceedings. The complainant’s argument in that regard is related to documents contained in or allegedly missing from her CERN medical file that she consulted after Judgment 3994 was delivered in public.
    As recalled in consideration 2, [...] the Tribunal, in Judgment 3994, awarded the complainant moral damages in the amount of 5,000 Swiss francs for the injury caused by the fact that she had only been given partial access to her medical file. Raising arguments based on the content of her medical file that she consulted following the public delivery of Judgment 3994 cannot afford the complainant grounds for review of that judgment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994

    Keywords:

    application for review; medical records; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; illness; service-incurred; summary procedure;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, its judgments, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and carry the authority of res judicata. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. 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 on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Pleas of 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 Judgment 3305, under 3, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3305

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4124


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3998.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4122


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4016.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, its judgments, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and carry the authority of res judicata. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. 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 on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Pleas of 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 Judgment 3305, under 3, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3305

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 4079


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; permanent; termination;

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that an application for review does not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620

    Keywords:

    application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds therefor are failure to take account of material facts, a material error (in other words, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, which thus differs from misinterpretation of the facts), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897

    Keywords:

    application for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4078


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; fixed-term; termination;

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that an application for review does not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620

    Keywords:

    application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds therefor are failure to take account of material facts, a material error (in other words, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, which thus differs from misinterpretation of the facts), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897

    Keywords:

    application for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4077


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that an application for review does not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for review; suspension;

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    With respect to the UPU’s request that the Tribunal rescind its decision with respect to the complainant’s reinstatement and award him material damages instead, there is no reviewable error that would allow the Tribunal to grant that request.

    Keywords:

    application for review; material damages; reinstatement;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds therefor are failure to take account of material facts, a material error (in other words, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, which thus differs from misinterpretation of the facts), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897

    Keywords:

    application for review; res judicata;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The application for review is also irreceivable, as the UPU does not raise any of the admissible grounds for review set out above.

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    In its pleas the UPU submits that “the UPU must stress that the [Tribunal] has made a decision which clearly sits outside its purview and seeks to call into question the mandate and authority of the [Council of Administration] as the sovereign governing body of the UPU between Congresses. If upheld, the Administration will have no choice but to take the matter to that governing body, as the [Director General] is in no way authorized to rescind [Council of Administration] decisions. Such an outcome might even lead to significant political implications of a wider character, including a review by UPU member countries of remedial mechanisms available to staff members for impugning decisions of the [Director General]” (emphasis added). This is a subtle threat to the Tribunal but a threat nonetheless. As an independent judicial body, the Tribunal is constituted by judges who must act without fear or favour. Such a threat must be ignored. Also, the threat if acted upon would subvert the operation of the rule of law at an international level. That is because dissatisfaction with a judgment lawfully rendered by a judicial body should never ground the rejection of the jurisdiction of that body. This is unacceptable behaviour by an international organization. The disdain the organization shows for the orderly resolution of justiciable disputes subverts the very institutions established to resolve them and the framework within which they operate. That is even more so as the organization’s understanding of the judgment in question is misconceived.

    Keywords:

    application for review; competence of tribunal; threat;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; reinstatement;



  • Judgment 4076


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed and application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3927 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds therefor are failure to take account of material facts, a material error (in other words, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, which thus differs from misinterpretation of the facts), an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts on which the complainant was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897

    Keywords:

    application for review; res judicata;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; disciplinary procedure; suspension;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    [T]he order contained in the decision of Judgment 3927 was clear and the application for review did not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7). The execution depended on the payment of an established amount of money and the UPU had to execute the judgment within one month from the date of its delivery (see Judgment 3152, consideration 20).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 3152, 3927

    Keywords:

    application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;



  • Judgment 3988


    126th Session, 2018
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3951.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3951

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3913

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; application for review;



  • Judgment 3984


    126th Session, 2018
    African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The ACP Group has filed an application for review and interpretation of Judgment 3845.

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry 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 on which the author of the application was unable to rely in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. On the other hand, pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).
    The amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal introduced in 2016 in order to recognise the parties’ right to file an application for review has no bearing on the grounds on which such applications may be admitted according to the case law cited above. [...]
    However, in order to determine these questions of competence and receivability, the Tribunal made legal assessments which were duly explained in the reasoning of the judgment and which may not be challenged in an application for review. Thus, despite the misleading way in which they are presented, the pleas raised by the ACP Group cannot be construed as relating to material errors, but solely as an attempt to challenge the Tribunal’s informed rulings on these issues.

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3845

    Keywords:

    application filed by the organisation; application for interpretation; application for review;



  • Judgment 3983


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed applications for review of Judgments 3508, 3628, 3710, 3711, 3712, 3778, 3779 and 3780.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    Under Article VI of its Statute the Tribunal’s judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. 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 on which the complainant was unable to rely 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 Judgment 3633, under 3, and the case law cited therein). The recent explicit recognition in the Tribunal’s Statute of the right to apply for a review has not altered the limits established in the Tribunal’s case law as to the grounds on which such applications can be admitted.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3633

    Keywords:

    application for review; grounds;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3508, 3628, 3710, 3711, 3712, 3778, 3779, 3780

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3982


    126th Session, 2018
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 96.

    Considerations 3-4

    Extract:

    Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that “[j]udgments shall be final and without appeal. The Tribunal may nevertheless consider applications for [...] review of a judgment.” Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal’s judgments may be reviewed only in exceptional cases and on strictly limited grounds which must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, 3473, under 3, 3634, under 4, and 3721, under 2). Moreover, the case law requires that an application for review be filed within a reasonable time in fairness to both parties (see Judgments 788, 2219, under 2, and 2693, under 4).
    In this case, on 30 November 2017 the complainant filed an application for review of a judgment delivered on 11 October 1966, in other words more than 51 years earlier. The Tribunal considers that the interval between these two dates constitutes an unreasonable period of time which cannot be justified by reliance on the recent amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal. Indeed, this amendment has no bearing on that period, since the Tribunal had already recognised the possibility of filing an application for review long before this was expressly provided for in its Statute (see Judgment 442, defining the theoretical bases for such an application). Indeed, the Tribunal considered that its judicial role necessarily required it to entertain such applications in order fully to dispose of the cases brought to it (see Judgment 3003, under 28).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 2219, 2693, 3001, 3003, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3721

    Keywords:

    application for review; time-limit for filing an application for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 96

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3899


    125th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3882.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The recent explicit recognition in the Tribunal’s Statute of the right to apply for a review has not altered the limits established in the Tribunal’s case law on the grounds on which such applications can be admitted.

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    It is determined that the grounds of review proffered by the complainant do not come within the limited grounds for reviewing a judgment as, essentially, he merely disagrees with the Tribunal’s interpretation of the facts and argues that it committed a mistake of law, neither of which constitute grounds for review under the Tribunal’s case law (see Judgment 3478, considerations 3, 4 and 6, Judgment 1529, considerations 7 and 8, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1529, 3478

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top