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
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
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; complaint dismissed;
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; complaint dismissed;
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; complaint dismissed;
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;
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; complaint dismissed;
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; complaint dismissed; 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.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3714
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed;
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; complaint dismissed;
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; complaint dismissed; 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; complaint dismissed;
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; complaint dismissed;
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; complaint dismissed;
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; complaint dismissed;
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, [...] 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; complaint dismissed;
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; complaint dismissed;
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-à-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; complaint dismissed;
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-à-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; complaint dismissed;
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; complaint dismissed;
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; complaint dismissed; 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; complaint dismissed; 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; complaint dismissed; 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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
