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 1825


    86th Session, 1999
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's judgments are final and binding. They are not subject to appeal. The Tribunal will not entertain applications for revision or review except in the most unusual circumstances such as fraud or the discovery of conclusive new evidence which could not have been brought forward before. The stability of judicial procedures and the need to bring an end to litigation require that parties must accept the result they obtain even when they are unsatisfied with it. Where both parties have had a full opportunity to present their case and where no new and previously undiscoverable factual element is brought forward the principle of res judicata prevents the reopening and rearguing of cases already decided."

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; evidence; finality of judgment; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1824


    86th Session, 1999
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. There are two sides to every case and the party who loses will usually believe that the Tribunal committed an error. There must, however, be an end to litigation and the stability of the judicial process requires that final judgments of the kind here at issue be set aside only on limited grounds and for the gravest of reasons."

    Keywords:

    application for review; finality of judgment; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1822


    86th Session, 1999
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    In Judgment 1656 "[the Tribunal] dismissed the [first] complaint as irreceivable and did not go into the merits. Since the Tribunal made no findings of fact on the merits, [the complainant's] allegations of fact on that score are not material. Nor has she shown any mistaken finding of fact that affects the issue of receivability."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1656

    Keywords:

    application for review; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 1803


    86th Session, 1999
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "There is no rule of procedure which precludes a member of an international tribunal from publishing a distinct opinion on a case before it. There is no flaw on that score."

    Keywords:

    application for review; dissenting opinion; judgment of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 1648


    83rd Session, 1997
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant's application for review rests on the discovery of an alleged new fact. "Is that indeed a new fact? Or was she not already aware of the substance of the minute [that she alleges the discovery of], and did she not plead accordingly in the original proceedings? The question is immaterial since in any event the minute does not affect the issue in dispute and the discovery of it does not warrant review."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1620


    83rd Session, 1997
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Organization submits that its application for review had the effect of suspending the execution of the judgment. The plea is unfounded. Article VI of the Tribunal's Statute states that its judgments are 'final and without appeal'. There is no provision in its Statute or Rules for any stay in the execution of a judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1592


    82nd Session, 1997
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[The complainant] pleads 'grave breaches' of due process in his [...] complaint. But the only one he cites is the rejection of his application for hearings. As the Tribunal has said time and again - for example in Judgment 442 [...] - failure to hear evidence is not an admissible plea for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; failure to admit evidence; oral proceedings; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 1545


    81st Session, 1996
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has often held, its judgments carry the force of res judicata and are not subject to appeal. Only in exceptional cases may it review them. Application for review is an extraordinary remedy that is not to be mistaken for appeal. Appeal lies only to a court of higher instance that may reconsider the whole case, whereas review, as contemplated in the case law, falls to the Tribunal itself."

    Keywords:

    application for review; finality of judgment; res judicata;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "Though the discovery of a new fact may afford grounds for review, the fact must date from before the material judgment and be such as would have affected the ruling had the Tribunal known of it in time. The facts the complainant alleges are subsequent to [...] the date of [the judgment in question]. They may afford grounds for a new complaint but not for review of that judgment."

    Keywords:

    application for review; definition; fact subsequent to the judgment; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1529


    81st Session, 1996
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 and 8

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 442 [...] and in many later judgments the Tribunal has declared an alleged mistake of law to be an inadmissible plea for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds that the Tribunal's legal reasoning was wrong would be to let anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision question it indefinitely in disregard of the res judicata rule. [...] The application must be summarily dismissed as clearly irreceivable under Article 7 of the Tribunal's Rules."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; finality of judgment; iloat statute; mistake of law; res judicata; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 1507


    81st Session, 1996
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "According to consistent precedent the Tribunal will allow an application for review only in exceptional cases. Its judgments are, as Article VI of its Statute says, 'final and without appeal' and carry the authority of res judicata. Admissible grounds for review are strictly limited: failure to take account of a material fact, an error of fact which involves no exercise of judgment, failure to rule on a claim, and the discovery of a new fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the plea must be such as to affect the original ruling: see Judgment 1255 [...] under 2." Inadmissible pleas for review are a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, a wrong appraisal of the facts and failure to rule on pleas: see, for example, Judgment 442 [...], also under 2."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1255

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of evidence; finality of judgment; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1504


    81st Session, 1996
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "It is not appropriate for [the complainant] to make a counterclaim to damages [for the moral injury allegedly caused to her] in the context of her submissions on an application by the organization for review [...] The claim arises out of a separate cause of action and is one that she should pursue separately."

    Keywords:

    application for review; claim; counterclaim; moral damages; new claim;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    For a plea alleging discovery of a new fact to succeed the fact must be one that the party seeking review "could not reasonably have been expected to discover in time and plead in the original case."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1500


    80th Session, 1996
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    In an earlier judgment the Tribunal held a disputed report to be lawful "so the issue is res judicata and not now open to appeal. [The complainant] cannot properly impute 'malice aforethought' to the reporting officer because he cites no fact he could not have relied on in his earlier complaint and which might afford valid grounds for review of [the judgment in question]."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1421


    79th Session, 1995
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    See Judgment 442, considerations 2 and 3

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1410


    78th Session, 1995
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    See Judgment 1409, consideration 7.

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for review; organisation; reply;



  • Judgment 1409


    78th Session, 1995
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "In the context of its reply to the complainants' application for execution the organization makes its own application for review of the judgment. Its application is refused. It should properly have filed a separate application, not sought review in the context of its reply."

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for review;



  • Judgment 1387


    78th Session, 1995
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The present applications mentioned no new facts. "That being so, and having communicated the applications [...] to the defendant for information in accordance with Article 7(1) of its Rules, the Tribunal dismisses them as clearly irreceivable within the meaning of 7(2) and does not order adversarial proceedings."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES

    Keywords:

    application for review; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 1377


    78th Session, 1995
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks review of a judgment in which the tribunal dismissed his case as time-barred. He alleges the existence of a new fact which would at the time have led the Tribunal to declare his complaint receivable. "The Tribunal rejects as incredible the evidence tendered by the complainant. Accordingly it applies the procedure provided for in Article 7 of its Rules and summarily dismisses the application as clearly devoid of merit."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES

    Keywords:

    application for review; evidence; lack of evidence; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 1353


    77th Session, 1994
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    See Judgments 442 and 1309.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1309

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1348


    77th Session, 1994
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant "has not pleaded any of the grounds on which an application for review will be entertained and which are set out, for example, in Judgments 442 [...] and 704 [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1309


    76th Session, 1994
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Organization is seeking to adduce additional evidence, not of new facts, but of circumstances which the Organization could and should, if it so wished, have relied on in its pleadings on the original case." The plea is inadmissible.

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    See Judgments 442 and 704, consideration 2.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application filed by the organisation; application for review; case law; exception; general principle; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; organisation; res judicata;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The defendant Organization is seeking review of a judgment on the grounds that the Tribunal's interpretation of one of UNESCO's rules overlooked well-established practice. The Tribunal interpreted that provision as it saw fit. "What the Organization is seeking is review on the grounds of an alleged mistake of law, and that is not an admissible plea for review."

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "In sum, according to the principles that the Tribunal consistently abides by in ruling on [applications for review], UNESCO's allegations do not amount to admissible pleas for review [...] The Tribunal therefore summarily dismisses the Organization's application as being clearly irreceivable within the meaning of Article 8(3) of the rules of court."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 8(3) OF THE RULES

    Keywords:

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

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


 
Last updated: 12.08.2019 ^ top