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 3305


    116th Session, 2014
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Application for review of Judgment 2913 in which the Tribunal allegedly minimized the discriminatory and disproportionate nature of the sanction imposed on the complainant.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2913

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 3303


    116th Session, 2014
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The application for review of Judgment 2990 is rejected in accordance with Article 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2990

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 3244


    115th Session, 2013
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 2975 relating to termination of her employment, relying on a new fact.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "As provided in Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are final. Accordingly, they are subject to the application of the principle of res judicata. However, it is well settled that they may be reviewed in exceptional circumstances and on limited grounds (see, for example, Judgments 748, under 3, 1252, under 2, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8, 2270, under 2, and 2693, under 2)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1252, 1294, 1504, 2270, 2693

    Keywords:

    application for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 3197


    115th Session, 2013
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the application for review of Judgment 2946, as there was no new fact giving rise to review.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal explained in Judgment 2693, under 2: 'A new fact is a fact on which the party claiming it was unable to rely through no fault of its own; it must be a material fact likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8 and 2270, under 2).'"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 1504, 2270, 2693

    Keywords:

    application for review; condition; effect; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "[A]s provided in Article VI of the Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are final. Accordingly, they are subject to the application of the principle of res judicata and will only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances and on limited grounds. That is, “failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new facts which the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the [earlier] proceedings” (see Judgment 1952, under 3)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3078


    112th Session, 2012
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal may review an earlier judgment on the basis of discovery of a new fact, provided it was discovered too late to be decided in the original proceedings and that it could not have been discovered with due diligence at the time of the earlier proceedings."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3000


    110th Session, 2011
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Application for review of Judgment 2854.
    "The grounds on which the Tribunal may review a judgment are set out in Judgment 442, under 3, as follows: 'an omission to take account of particular facts; a material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which, unlike a mistake in appraisal of the facts, involves no exercise of judgment; an omission to pass judgment on a claim; and the discovery of a so called 'new' fact, i.e. a fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings.' The ground on which review is sought must be one that would have led to a different result in the earlier proceedings."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review;



  • Judgment 2998


    110th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Application for review of Judgment 2653.
    "The grounds on which the Tribunal may review a judgment are set out in Judgment 442, under 3, as follows: 'an omission to take account of particular facts; a material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which, unlike a mistake in appraisal of the facts, involves no exercise of judgment; an omission to pass judgment on a claim; and the discovery of a so called 'new' fact, i.e. a fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings.' An application for review will not be granted unless the matter relied upon as a ground for review is such as to affect the Tribunal's decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 2653

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review;



  • Judgment 2987


    110th Session, 2011
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    Application for review of Judgment 2786.
    "It is well established that the Tribunal's judgments may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on the grounds of 'failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new facts which the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the [earlier] proceedings' (see Judgment 1952, under 3).
    Although the complainant frames his request for review in terms of a failure to take into account certain facts, he refers to no facts that were overlooked by the Tribunal. In effect, the request is based on his disagreement with the outcome. It follows that the application must be dismissed in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952, 2786

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review;



  • Judgment 2937


    109th Session, 2010
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has consistently accepted as a ground for review of its judgments 'material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which, unlike a mistake in appraisal of the facts, involves no exercise of judgment' (see Judgment 2586 and the cases cited therein)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2586

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; material error;



  • Judgment 2826


    107th Session, 2009
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "There was nothing to preclude the complainant from raising the argument based on the French text of the Staff Regulations in his first complaint. He was then armed with the recommendation and reasons of the Appeal Board, both of which were based on the English text of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. Further, as he was then seeking recognition of his same-sex partner as a dependent spouse, it was for him to advance argument as to why that course should be taken rather than the more limited course recommended by the Appeal Board. Moreover, the grounds on which the Tribunal may review its judgments are limited to «failure to take account of some essential fact, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the later discovery of some essential fact that the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings» (see Judgment 1252 and also Judgments 442, 555 and 649). The argument based on the French text is, in essence, an argument that the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules as barring recognition of the complainant's partner as his dependent spouse. That is not an admissible ground for the review of a judgment (see Judgment 2029). Nor is it a ground for review that, on 3 September 2007 and after Judgment 2643 was delivered, the complainant married his partner in British Columbia in accordance with the law of Canada. It would entirely defeat the principles of finality and res judicata if subsequent facts could be taken into account on an application for review of a judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 555, 649, 1252, 2029, 2643

    Keywords:

    application for review; dependant; finality of judgment; inadmissible grounds for review; language of rule; marital status; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata; same-sex marriage;



  • Judgment 2816


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4 and 5

    Extract:

    "In his application for review, the complainant merely revisits and reargues the facts already considered by the Tribunal in his fourth complaint. The annexes which he submits in support of his application are all dated long before Judgment 2580 was rendered, and they shed no new light that could conceivably lead to a different analysis of the case. Therefore, there was no new fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings and which would be such as to affect the Tribunal's decision."
    "In the circumstances, the Tribunal dismisses the application for review in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in Article 7 of its Rules."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2580

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Consistent precedent has it that: «Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court permit an application for review of a judgment of the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal may therefore declare such an application receivable only in quite exceptional circumstances, for example when new facts of decisive importance have come to light since the date of the judgment.» (See in particular Judgment 350.)"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 350, 2580

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; receivability of the complaint; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 2806


    106th Session, 2009
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    In Judgment 2575, the Tribunal annulled a decision to transfer the complainant from Vienna to Berlin. No action was taken to return him to Vienna. Instead, on 13 February 2007, the IOM informed him that he was to be transferred to Berlin with immediate effect. In Judgment 2691, the Tribunal declared that the decision of 13 February 2007 was "null and void ab initio".
    "Like all judicial bodies, the Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction and power to take action to ensure that its judgments are implemented. That power may be exercised in any proceedings where a question is raised with respect to the implementation of a judgment. Accordingly, an order will be made for a penalty to be paid in the event that [the complainant] is not posted to Vienna within 30 days."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2575, 2691

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; application for review; continuing breach; delay; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; res judicata; time limit;



  • Judgment 2693


    104th Session, 2008
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's judgments have the authority of res judicata. They will be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on limited grounds. These grounds include the discovery of a new fact. A new fact is a fact on which the party claiming it was unable to rely through no fault of its own; it must be a material fact likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8 and 2270, under 2)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 1504, 2270

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; definition; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; limits; misconduct; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;



  • Judgment 2586


    102nd Session, 2007
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[A]s pointed out in Judgment 442, 'the allegedly libellous nature of a judgment affords no grounds for reviewing it'."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; case law; iloat; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 2270


    95th Session, 2003
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "As is clear from Judgment 442, a Tribunal judgment is res judicata and will only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances including, for example, omission to take account of a fact or the discovery of a 'new' fact. Of course, even in such cases, review will not be granted if the fact in question does not bear on the judgment given. In other words, a fact must be a 'material fact' before the Tribunal will review a judgment on the ground of discovery of a new fact or on the ground that a fact has been overlooked."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 2219


    95th Session, 2003
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The [organisation] contends that the application for review is irreceivable on the grounds that it was submitted more than five months after the judgment was delivered. According to the [organisation], this does not constitute a "reasonable" time within the meaning of the case law referred to in Judgment 1952. The Tribunal on occasion has ruled on applications for review filed more than six months after the impugned judgment was delivered, and even though it is aware of the need to avoid going back on legal situations arising from its decisions, it may consider an application to be receivable when it is submitted nearly six months after a judgment has been delivered, as in the present case. If vital evidence were to come to light, for instance, a judgment could be reviewed even after a greater period of time has elapsed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952

    Keywords:

    application for review; case law; reasonable time; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;



  • Judgment 2213


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6(a)

    Extract:

    The Tribunal had dismissed the complaint by which the complainant impugned the non-renewal of his appointment. In his application for review of that judgment, he submits that a post intended for him had been mentioned in the draft programme and budget and that, since the document had been approved as it stood by the General Conference, this implied his appointment to the post at issue. "The question arises as to whether such an argument affords grounds for review. It is not necessary to answer that question, considering that the fact does not appear to be decisive, since the adoption of a budget could [...] not be interpreted as a decision to make an appointment."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; admissible grounds for review; application for review; appointment; assignment; consequence; contract; decision; executive body; inadmissible grounds for review; interpretation; non-renewal of contract; post;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    In his application for review "the complainant contends that the Tribunal failed to rule on requests for the disclosure of documents by the organization [...] A plea that the Tribunal failed to rule on claims is related to a complainant's submissions on the merits; by contrast, decisions by the Tribunal on requests for the disclosure of documents concern the administration and appraisal of evidence and cannot, in principle, give rise to review."

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of evidence; disclosure of evidence; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a claim;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The financial claims the complainant submits in his application for review are greater than those he put forward in the proceedings of the judgment he wants to have reviewed. "To that extent, they are [...] irreceivable on the grounds that internal remedies have not been exhausted."

    Keywords:

    allowance; application for review; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2029


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

    Considérant 4

    Extract:

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

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 2021


    90th Session, 2001
    International Office of Epizootics
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant alleges that the Tribunal has failed to rule on one of his claims in his previous case. But it was merely a plea and not a claim. "The Tribunal did not need to address that plea if it felt it was unnecessary to do so."

    Keywords:

    application for review; omission to rule on a claim; omission to rule on a plea;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "Lack of impartiality in a tribunal is a serious matter and an allegation of this sort should be neither made nor taken lightly. It is, like any other breach of the principles of natural justice, a proper ground for seeking review of a judgment."

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; bias; burden of proof; general principle;

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    The complainant contends that the opinion of the President of the Tribunal was tainted with bias since he has the same nationality as a few of the organisation's senior officers. "This is simply unacceptable. International organisations by definition have no nationality and their officers and employees are drawn from citizens of many countries; it is the organisations and not their officers who appear as defendants in cases before the Tribunal and the nationality of the judges who hear those cases is wholly irrelevant."

    Keywords:

    application for review; bias; nationality; president of tribunal;

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The complainant fears that the opinion of a member of the Tribunal was tainted with bias since he has the same nationality as a few of the organisation's senior officers. "Applications for review are normally heard by the same panel which rendered the original decision; a complainant cannot, by making wholly frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations force one or more members of the panel to recuse themselves."

    Keywords:

    application for review; bias; general principle; nationality;

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    "The concerns expressed by the complainant with regard to the fact that [the President of the Tribunal] and [one of the organisation's senior officers] both attended the same school and that [the President] was Director of an institute at which [another senior officer] taught are [...] without merit [...] If his opinion were to be followed, students having attended an institution should be prevented from judging cases in which the names of other students of the same institution appear."

    Keywords:

    application for review; bias; president of tribunal;



  • Judgment 1952


    89th Session, 2000
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 4

    Extract:

    "Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal's judgments are final and without appeal and that they carry the authority of res judicata. It is only in quite exceptional circumstances that an application for review, although not provided for in the Statute, can be allowed: the only grounds which may be entertained are failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new facts which the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the proceedings which led to the judgment which the complainant is seeking to reverse. The application for review should also be filed within a reasonable time and the pleas put forward should be of such a nature as to affect the original ruling. [...] In the present case, the Tribunal finds that none of the grounds exist for challenging the ruling already made[: the] application for review was only filed more than one year after the adoption of the judgment that she is challenging [...] The complainant now merely calls into question the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. [A] form, which she says constitutes a new fact, had already been sent to her counsel [...] during the internal appeals procedure. [Finally, the plea] that she was not assisted effectively by her former counsel [...] does not warrant review of the Tribunal's judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1727

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; counsel; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; omission to rule on a claim; reasonable time; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;

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


 
Last updated: 07.11.2019 ^ top