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

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



  • Judgment 3898


    125th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3873.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3873

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    In the present case, the complainant calls into question Judgment 3873 merely on the basis of evidence produced during the original proceedings which has therefore already been considered by the Tribunal. He does not adduce any new facts on which he was unable to rely in the original proceedings through no fault of his own, but simply disagrees with the Tribunal’s appraisal of the evidence and its interpretation of the law.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3873

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3897


    125th Session, 2018
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3851.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    In his application for review, the complainant simply disagrees with the Tribunal’s appraisal of the evidence and its interpretation of the law. The complainant’s argument [...] demonstrates that the present application for review does not raise any of the above grounds for review and that it is in fact merely an attempt to re-open issues already settled in Judgment 3851.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3851

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3851

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s judgments carry the authority of res judicata and 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 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. 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, 3473, under 3, and 3634, under 4).

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3819


    124th Session, 2017
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3714.

    Consideration

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3714

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3818


    124th Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3685.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3685

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3817


    124th Session, 2017
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3623.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3623

    Keywords:

    application for review; res judicata;



  • 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 2

    Extract:

    It has been consistently stated in the case law that in conformity with Article VI of its Statute 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 for review are failure to take account of material facts, a material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which, unlike a mistake in the appraisal of the facts, involves 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, such pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Conversely, 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, 3473, under 3, 3634, under 4, and 3718, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3718

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3571

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3815


    124th Session, 2017
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3486.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3486

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3722


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the review of Judgment 3583.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal observes that the third stated ground of review: failure to adjudge the issues involved in light of the Tribunal’s case law, does not fall within the admissible grounds for review that are set out in the Tribunal’s case law.

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3583

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    According to a consistent line of precedent, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’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, for example, 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, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3721


    123rd Session, 2017
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the review of Judgment 3681.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3681

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [The] pleas are tantamount to calling into question the contested judgment on the basis of evidence which was produced in the initial proceedings and therefore already examined by the Tribunal. As indicated in consideration 2, above, such pleas are irreceivable in an application for review.
    The filing of this application for review is in fact merely an attempt to re-open issues already settled in Judgment 3681.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3681

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3720


    123rd Session, 2017
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the review of Judgment 3510.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant’s plea that the Tribunal “passed over a number of significant facts” is tantamount to disagreeing with the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence in the file. It is therefore irreceivable in an application for review.

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3510

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s judgments carry the authority of res judicata and 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 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. 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, 3473, under 3, and 3634, under 4).

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3719


    123rd Session, 2017
    Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The CTA seeks the review of Judgment 3437.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that under Article VI of its Statute the Tribunal’s 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 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 which the defendant 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. 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, 3473, under 3, and 3634, under 4).

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3437

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    It is plain from the contents of the application for review that it has been filed only as an attempt to re-open issues already settled in the above-mentioned judgment.

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to the case law of the Tribunal, where an organisation seeks to challenge a judgment unfavourable to itself by way of an application for review, the staff member concerned cannot make a counterclaim for damages in the context of his or her submissions on the application. Such a claim arises from a separate cause of action and should be pursued separately (see Judgments 1504, under 13, 2806, under 10, and 3003, under 50).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1504, 2806, 3003

    Keywords:

    application for review; counterclaim; damages;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant, who has been obliged to take part in these proceedings in order to protect his interests vis-ŕ-vis the Centre, is entitled to costs [...].

    Keywords:

    application for review; costs;



  • Judgment 3718


    123rd Session, 2017
    Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The CTA seeks the review of Judgment 3436.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3436

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that under Article VI of its Statute the Tribunal’s 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 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 which the defendant 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. 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, 3473, under 3, and 3634, under 4).

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    It is plain from the contents of the application for review that it has been filed only as an attempt to re-open issues already settled in the above-mentioned judgment.

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to the case law of the Tribunal, where an organisation seeks to challenge a judgment unfavourable to itself by way of an application for review, the staff member concerned cannot make a counterclaim for damages in the context of his or her submissions on the application. Such a claim arises from a separate cause of action and should be pursued separately (see Judgments 1504, under 13, 2806, under 10, and 3003, under 50).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1504, 2806, 3003

    Keywords:

    application for review; counterclaim; damages;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant, who has been obliged to take part in these proceedings in order to protect her interests vis-ŕ-vis the Centre, is entitled to costs [...].

    Keywords:

    application for review; costs;



  • Judgment 3634


    122nd Session, 2016
    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 3593.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    In his application for review, the complainant essentially raises the same arguments as those raised in his first complaint. He does not argue that there are any new facts on which he was unable to rely in the first proceedings through no fault of his own. He simply disagrees with the Tribunal’s appraisal of the evidence and its interpretation of the law. Moreover, he completely ignores the fact that all claims that were not accepted by the Tribunal were specifically rejected in point 4 of the Tribunal’s decision.

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3633


    122nd Session, 2016
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Global Fund has filed an application for review of Judgments 3506 and 3507.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that 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. As stated in Judgments 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 and 2736, for example, 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, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3.)

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he Global Fund’s pleas plainly do not warrant a review of Judgments 3506 and 3507. In fact, it is clear that the present application for review is quite simply an attempt to re-open discussion of questions that have already been settled in these judgments. The application will therefore be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506, 3507

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506, 3507

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3563


    121st Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgment 3297.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297

    Keywords:

    application for review; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3562


    121st Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants request review of Judgment 3538.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3538

    Keywords:

    application for review; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3561


    121st Session, 2016
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgment 3141 on the basis that a new fact has allegedly come to light.

    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, 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): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3141

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[A]n application for review cannot afford a complainant the opportunity to make new claims (see Judgment 1295, under 6) or, in particular, to “seek a form of relief which was not sought in the [original] case” (see Judgment 609, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 609, 1295

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3547


    120th Session, 2015
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the Tribunal's judgments are res judicata, the application for review is summarily dismissed.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its 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. 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 Judgment(s): 3305

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3480


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant applies for review of Judgment 3427, alleging that the Tribunal has failed to take into account an important fact.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3427

    Keywords:

    application for review; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3479


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant requests review of Judgment 3273, in which the Tribunal dismissed his complaint challenging the reclassification of his post.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3273

    Keywords:

    application for review; summary procedure;

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


 
Last updated: 12.08.2019 ^ top