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, 744, 754, 803, 882,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Application for review
Total judgments found: 172

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >

  • Judgment 4783


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for the review of Judgment 4424.

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    The principles applicable in an application for review are well settled (see, for example, Judgment 4736, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein):
    “[T]he 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.”
    While he does not do so in his complaint brief, the complainant does seek to establish in his rejoinder how two of these grounds have been engaged. The first is that the Tribunal allegedly committed a material error of fact. The factual error was said to be that the Tribunal did not consider that the complainant had suffered any financial consequence for the decision placing him on unauthorised absence […], even though this was not the case. The complaint acknowledges this was not stated explicitly. Even if this analysis were correct (which it is not) it does not constitute a failure to take into account a material fact. The second ground is that the Tribunal allegedly failed to rule on a claim. Relevantly that was a claim for material damages. Having regard to the relief sought in the complaint leading to the judgment being reviewed, no such claim was made.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4736

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; material error; omission to rule on a claim;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4424

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 4782


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants filed an application review of Judgment 4484.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4484

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 4736


    136th Session, 2023
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4571.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Tribunal concludes that, as the complainant is essentially confining herself in revisiting arguments advanced unsuccessfully in her fourth complaint and expressing disagreement with the Tribunal’s appraisal of the evidence and interpretation of the law, her application for review is in fact a mere attempt to reopen issues already settled in the original judgment (see, for similar cases, Judgments 4122, consideration 7, and 3897, consideration 4). The matters raised are res judicata and she puts forward no legitimate ground to reopen the findings made by the Tribunal in the original judgment (see Judgments 4440, consideration 7, and 3479, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3479, 3897, 4122, 4440

    Keywords:

    application for review; res judicata;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4571

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;

    Considerations 6 & 8

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant submits that the Tribunal came to the wrong conclusion in considering that the decision which was impugned in her fourth complaint was not a final one challengeable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute. She asserts that the Tribunal relied on wrong legal provisions, made a poor interpretation of the wording of the decision in question, omitted to consider that she had lodged a prior request for review and did not take into consideration IOM’s refusal to follow the procedures established for the internal appeal process.
    By those arguments, the complainant is in fact simply alleging that the Tribunal incorrectly appraised the facts in question. Such arguments do not constitute admissible grounds for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 5, and 3983, consideration 6).
    [...]
    [T]he omission to rule on a plea is not an admissible ground for review [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3983, 4440

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The legal assessments made by the Tribunal in a judgment cannot be challenged in an application for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 4, and 3984, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 4440

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 4730


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4417.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    For a considerable time, the process of review of the Tribunal’s judgments was not expressly recognised in the Tribunal’s Statute, but it now is in Article VI by an amendment made by the International Labour Conference on 7 June 2016. However, the settled principles governing the process of review have been developed by the Tribunal over time and before the amendment of the Statute in 2016 and continue to apply. According to those principles, the Tribunal’s judgments are final and without appeal and have res judicata authority. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds of review are failure to take account of material facts, a material error (in other words, a mistaken finding of fact 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. 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, Judgment 4338, consideration 2, and the judgments referred to therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4338

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4417

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 4729


    136th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4415.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The complainant has filed with the Tribunal an application for review of Judgment 4415. Until recently, the process of review was not expressly recognised in the Tribunal’s Statute, but it now is in Article VI, paragraph 1, of the Statute, by an amendment adopted by the International Labour Conference on 7 June 2016. However, the settled principles governing the process of review have been developed by the Tribunal over time, and before the amendment, and continue to apply. As the Tribunal most recently observed in consideration 2 of Judgment 4440 […]

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4415, 4440

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The short answer, in this case, is that the alleged errors (if they be reviewable errors) on the Tribunal’s part are not likely to have had a bearing on the central outcome, namely the refusal to order reinstatement.

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4415

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 4706


    136th Session, 2023
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4273.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4273, 4705

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 4705


    136th Session, 2023
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4274.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4274

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;

    Considerations 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s consistent precedent has it that, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry res judicata authority. 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, 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 4338, consideration 2, 3897, consideration 3, 3815, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, 3452, consideration 2, and 3001, consideration 2).
    [...]
    It should [...] be noted that the alleged error was not likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case, as required by the aforementioned case law in order to establish a ground for review.
    [T]he inadequacy of the reasons given for a judgment is not in any event one of the grounds for review recognised in the case law, an exhaustive list of which has been provided [...].
    [T]he complainant is in fact seeking to use this argument to challenge the Tribunal’s interpretation of his written submissions, which cannot be properly challenged in an application for review [...].
    [T]he Tribunal made a legal assessment which is plainly not open to challenge in an application for review.
    [T]he complainant’s application for review is, for the main part, merely an attempt to re-litigate matters that were conclusively decided by the Tribunal in Judgment 4274 and must be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3719, 3815, 3897, 4274, 4338

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 4689


    136th Session, 2023
    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 4227.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4227

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The complainant has filed an application with the Tribunal for review of Judgment 4227. For a considerable time, the process of review was not expressly recognised in the Tribunal’s Statute, but it now is in Article VI by an amendment made by the International Labour Conference on 7 June 2016. However, the settled principles governing the process of review have been developed by the Tribunal over time and before the amendment and continue to apply. As the Tribunal most recently observed in consideration 2 of Judgment 4440: “[P]ursuant 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, [consideration] 2, 3452, [consideration] 2, and 3473, [consideration] 3).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473, 4227, 4440

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [F]or the complainant to fall within the very narrowly framed grounds of review, it would have been necessary for him to establish that the factual findings of the Appeals Committee were not available on the evidence. It is not sufficient for the complainant to seek to demonstrate, as he does, that other factual findings could have been made had the evidence been viewed and assessed differently.

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 4657


    136th Session, 2023
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed applications for interpretation and for review of Judgment 4074.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4074

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; application for review; complaint dismissed;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    For a considerable period, the process of review was not expressly recognised in the Tribunal’s Statute, but it now is in Article VI by an amendment made by the International Labour Conference on 7 June 2016. However, the settled principles governing the process of review have been developed by the Tribunal over time and before the amendment and continue to apply. As the Tribunal most recently observed in consideration 2 of Judgment 4440: “[P]ursuant 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 Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 4440

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Considerations 3-5

    Extract:

    [T]here is a threshold issue to be addressed, namely whether the application for review is receivable having regard to the time taken after Judgment 4074 was delivered to file the application for review. Receivability is a matter that can be raised by the Tribunal ex officio. In Judgment 1952, consideration 3, the Tribunal said that an application for review should be filed within a reasonable time. To similar effect are Judgments 3982 and 2219. In the first-mentioned of these latter cases, the period was patently unreasonable and the application was dismissed as irreceivable (and also baseless on the merits).
    In this case the application for review was filed over 20 months after Judgment 4074 was delivered in public. The amounts payable under the judgment were paid, the Tribunal infers from correspondence in evidence, sometime shortly before 3 April 2019.
    The Tribunal invited the applicant and the Global Fund to make submissions on the question of receivability. The central issue is whether 20 months is a reasonable time. The Global Fund effectively said it would abide by the Tribunal’s decision. The complainant’s submissions were made on 2 March 2023. He recounts that in early April 2019 he began the process of trying to obtain documents from the Global Fund he apparently hoped to use in any application for review. He had some very limited success but was mainly unsuccessful. By July 2019 it would have been apparent to the complainant that the prospect of obtaining the documents then being sought was negligible. He could have then filed the application for review. But he persisted into 2020 in making requests through channels he had not hitherto followed. The complainant made a confidential submission concerning his personal circumstances from February 2020 until September 2020. The import of this submission was that the focus of his time and energy were those personal circumstances and the making of the application for review was “forgotten”. But even accepting this is correct it does not account for a delay of approximately a year from the time the judgment was made public until these personal circumstances began to unfold. The complainant could have applied for a review, but did not in this period. Even discounting the total time following February 2020, the time taken to file the application for review was unreasonable. It is thus irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952, 2219, 3982, 4074

    Keywords:

    application for review; reasonable time;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4474


    133rd Session, 2022
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application to review Judgment 4360.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; due process; evidence;



  • Judgment 4442


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4329.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4440


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4370.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4436


    132nd Session, 2021
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4221.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 4414


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants filed applications for review of Judgment 4195.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    One of the complainants, Mr K., requests that the application be examined by judges who were not involved in Judgment 4195. This request was rejected by the President of the Tribunal, though he decided that the application for review will be considered by a panel which is not entirely the same as the panel which adopted Judgment 4195.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4195

    Keywords:

    application for review; conflict of interest;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 4409


    132nd Session, 2021
    Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4215.

    Considerations 3-5

    Extract:

    It should be noted that OTIF, by a decision adopted by its Administrative Committee at its session on 27 and 28 June 2017 and notified by its Secretary General to the Director-General of the International Labour Office (ILO) by a letter of 17 January 2018, has withdrawn its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
    In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, as set out in Judgments 1043, consideration 3, and 4141, considerations 2 to 4, that withdrawal took effect on the date of the deliberation of the Governing Body of the ILO taking note of the decision in question, which in the present case took place on 13 March 2018.
    Although the Tribunal had jurisdiction to rule on the complaint that gave rise to Judgment 4215, which had been filed before that date and which OTIF had expressly excluded from the scope of its withdrawal decision, since that date, the Tribunal has no longer been competent to hear new complaints against that Organisation.
    However, it must be considered that, where, as in this case, the Tribunal has delivered a judgment on a complaint against an international organisation which has since withdrawn from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it nevertheless remains competent to hear any applications for interpretation of that judgment. The Tribunal is, by definition, the only body capable of interpreting its judgments, should that be necessary. For similar reasons, the Tribunal also remains competent to hear applications for execution or review that may be brought in respect of a judgment delivered in the same circumstances.
    Notwithstanding the date on which it was filed, this application does therefore fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and it is noted that the Organisation does not raise any objections on this point in its reply.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1043, 4141, 4215

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; competence of tribunal;



  • Judgment 4367


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgments 4255 and 4256.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4366


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant applies for the review of Judgment 4256.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4365


    131st Session, 2021
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant requests the review of Judgment 4224.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; material error; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4355


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the review of Judgment 4182.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; res judicata;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top