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: 148

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



  • Judgment 859


    63rd Session, 1987
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The application is irreceivable because the applicant is seeking, without offering a shred of new evidence, to challenge a decision the Tribunal handed down after letting him have his full say in written proceedings."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 785

    Keywords:

    application for review; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 788


    60th Session, 1986
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has not thus far set a time limit for seeking review of its judgments. In this case, it considers the delay of nine years entirely unreasonable.

    Keywords:

    application for review; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 749


    59th Session, 1986
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant accuses the Tribunal of having disregarded specific facts. As there is no evidence to support his assertions, the application is rejected.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 588, 645, 681

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of facts;



  • Judgment 748


    59th Session, 1986
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Whether reinstatement is inadvisable is an issue of law. A mistake of law does not constitute admissible grounds for review, and the Tribunal's decision on the point, even if it was wrong, is not subject to review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 665

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of law; reinstatement;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "[A] new fact will constitute admissible grounds for an application for review only provided that 1) it would have had some effect on the Tribunal's decision and 2) the applicant was unable, for reasons beyond his control, to rely on it in the original proceedings."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 665

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "As is clear from precedent the absence of a ruling on issues that are not material affords no grounds for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 665

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 705


    57th Session, 1985
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Several pleas are inadmissible as grounds for review, such as allegations of error of law or misappraisal of the evidence. Nor does the failure to hear evidence or to rule on pleas submitted by the parties afford admissible grounds for review. Other pleas may be admissible provided they may have an effect on the Tribunal's decision. Examples are failure to take account of specific facts, material error [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 607

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 704


    57th Session, 1985
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's judgments [...] are [...] subject to review on application either by the complainant insofar as he is not satisfied or by the defendant organisation when its decision is set aside or it is ordered to pay damages."

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    See Judgment 705, consideration 2.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 705

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 658


    55th Session, 1985
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The construction which the Tribunal put on [the provision] is an issue of law. An appraisal of the facts which is based on legal reasoning does not afford grounds for review. In any event the Tribunal's reasoning on the issue did not afford the basis for its decision to dismiss the complaint, as indeed is clear from the inclusion of the words 'en outre' in the authentic text."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 617

    Keywords:

    application for review; interpretation; mistake of law;

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The tTibunal's judgments are subject to review only in exceptional cases. Failure to take account of a specific fact, a material error, failure to rule on a claim or the discovery of a new fact may be treated as admissible grounds for review; but an error of law, misappraisal of evidence, failure to take account of evidence and failure to answer a plea may not."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 649


    55th Session, 1985
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "What [the Organisation] is really saying is that the Tribunal misapplied the rules, and an allegation of a mistake of law does not constitute admissible grounds for review since it is an attack on the principle of res judicata."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 564, 565, 614

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of law;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "A judgment carries the force of res judicata from the date on which it is handed down. Though it is subject to review thereafter, the Tribunal will review it only in exceptional circumstances. Some pleas in support of an application for review, such as misappraisal of evidence, are inadmissible. Others, such as material error or the discovery of new facts, are not; but for the application to succeed they must be such as to affect the decision."

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; exception; judgment of the tribunal; misinterpretation of the facts; res judicata;



  • Judgment 645


    54th Session, 1984
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "An application for review is an exceptional procedure and is admissible only in strictly defined circumstances, for example where specific facts have been disregarded or so-called 'new' facts discovered. A new fact is a fact or an item of evidence which the applicant did not become aware of in time to be able to rely on it in the original proceedings."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 588

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "the tribunal will not review a judgment to take account of a new claim."

    Keywords:

    application for review; new claim;



  • Judgment 610


    53rd Session, 1984
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    the plea "based on the item in the defendant's possession at the time of the original proceedings [...] is admissible. but the item must be of a kind which warrants review of the judgment". the document was drawn up after the internal proceedings to serve as the basis for a settlement. "both the complainant and the tribunal were aware of the offer of settlement, which was all that mattered at the time. the failure to disclose the item does not warrant any derogation from the rule that judgments are final, and the application must fail."

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    the tribunal maintains that "unless there is clear evidence, which there is not in this case, of a mistaken approach to the problem," the opinion of the competent body in the organization must be accepted. "that is the ratio decidendi, and the tribunal [...] deliberately refrained from making findings on the evidence. [...] to allow the complainant's plea would be to countenance objections to the tribunal's reasoning, and such objections do not constitute an admissible plea."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 446

    Keywords:

    application for review; failure to admit evidence;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "an application for review is an exceptional procedure and is admissible only in strictly defined circumstances, for example where specific facts have been disregarded or so-called 'new' facts discovered. [...] although such omission enables the tribunal to review its decision, it will not necessarily do so. as it has said many times, it will review a judgment only in quite exceptional circumstances".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 446

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "as [the tribunal] has said many times, it will review a judgment only in quite exceptional circumstances: not only are the admissible pleas for review severely limited but what is required is the finding of an exceptional fact, such as an oversight or some fortuitous circumstance, warranting derogation from the general rule of res judicata in article vi of the statute of the tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI ILOAT STATUTE
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 446

    Keywords:

    application for review; exception; res judicata;



  • Judgment 609


    52nd Session, 1984
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 1, 2 and 4

    Extract:

    "By [its] judgment, the Tribunal ordered the organization to pay to the complainant $40,000 as 'compensation for the unlawful termination of his contract' and also $6,000 as costs." The organization paid that sum to the complainant in execution of the said judgment. The complainant seeks reimbursement for any taxes he might have to pay on the sum. "No obscurity in the judgment is alleged or identified. [...] The argument does not attempt to bring the case within the very limited grounds on which the tribunal permits reconsideration or review." The complaint is dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 523

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; application for review; execution of judgment; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; material damages; refund; tax;



  • Judgment 604


    52nd Session, 1984
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant invites the Tribunal to correct the material error in Judgments nos. 404, 442 and 536. The Tribunal recalls that a complainant may not submit the same pleas for review more than once. It first seeks to determine whether Judgment no. 536 suffers from any defects which would cause it to be set aside and which could then require the other judgments to be reconsidered. The Tribunal finds that Judgment no. 536 does not overlook the complainant's claims, contrary to her allegations, and is therefore not admissible for review. The complainant's criticism of the Tribunal's appraisal of the claims and certain facts in the case serves no purpose and is not an admissible ground for review.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442, 536

    Keywords:

    application for review; material error; res judicata;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    the judgment "gave a comprehensive answer to the complainant's claims. [...] in the circumstances that was an adequate answer. since, as has been said, an application for review is an exceptional procedure and a derogation from res judicata, a comprehensive answer is quite proper: the tribunal need not answer every single argument once it has taken the view that the application is irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442, 536

    Keywords:

    application for review; omission to rule on a plea;



  • Judgment 593


    51st Session, 1983
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal will not allow review on the grounds of an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts."

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court provide for review of the Tribunal's judgments. Although an application for review may nevertheless be entertained, only certain pleas will be admitted. In particular, an alleged mistake of law affords no grounds for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata."

    Keywords:

    application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law; no provision;



  • Judgment 590


    51st Session, 1983
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "by a letter [...] the complainant wrote to regret that his case had been incorrectly ruled by the tribunal and to assert that the dismissal of his complaint was not justified. treating this letter as an application for further review, the tribunal finds no grounds therein for any further review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 547

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 579


    51st Session, 1983
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "According to its case law ,the Tribunal will not allow review on the grounds of an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts; nor is failure to admit evidence a valid reason for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 531

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The grounds upon which the complainant seeks review, viz. the error of his being placed by the Selection Committee in [a particular category], the failure of the Selection Committee to screen his case properly and the refusal of the Tribunal to summon witnesses whom the complainant did not call at the hearing by the [Internal Appeal Board], are not grounds for review."

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts; oral proceedings; refusal; tribunal;



  • Judgment 578


    51st Session, 1983
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks review on the grounds of an omission to take account of particular facts, which is entirely without merit. "the complainant merely repeats arguments which he had put forward in his original complaint."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 529

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 570


    51st Session, 1983
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The organisation pleads [...] that the Tribunal omitted to take account of material facts. In support of such a plea, the organisation should [1] particularise each fact that was ignored; [2] identify the passages in the dossier which show that the organisation was relying upon the fact; [3] demonstrate from the terms of the judgment submitted for review that the Tribunal could not have reached the conclusion it did if it had taken the fact into account."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    application for review; condition;

    Summary

    Extract:

    The organisation applied for review of Judgments 507 and 508. The application was dismissed for failing to show the existence of exceptional circumstances needed to justify it. The application for review was dismissed. Each respondent is awarded costs.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    application filed by the organisation; application for review; costs;

    Consideration 8 (1)

    Extract:

    "a review is normally confined to the facts in the dossier of the case whose judgment is being submitted for review. it is useless for the applicant to refer to facts outside the dossier unless he introduces them specially as new facts and justifies their introduction accordingly."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    application for review; purport;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    the power of review may be exercised in cases of "an omission to take account of particular facts; a material error involving no exercise of judgment and therefore distinguishable from misappraisal of fact which does not warrant review; an omission to pass judgment on a claim; and the discovery of a so-called 'new' fact [...] an error within these categories constitutes a basis for the exercise of the power to review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review;

    Consideration 8 (3)

    Extract:

    "it is useless to present an application which in substance is inviting the tribunal to have second thoughts. if it can have second thoughts, it can also have third and fourth thoughts and there can be no finality. to displace the principle of finality, the applicant must show the exceptional case in which insistence upon it would be unjust."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    application for review; exception; res judicata;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    In the "judgment submitted for review, the Tribunal stated that the effect of certain decisions of the [National Supreme Court] was 'summed up [...] in terms which the organisation does not dispute'. The organisation, while not denying that it failed to challenge the summary, wishes now to dispute it and to put in evidence the opinions of experts who take the contrary view. This is not permissible."

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 8 (3)

    Extract:

    "to displace the principle of finality, the applicant must show the exceptional case in which insistence upon it would be unjust. such is the case of a 'new' fact which the applicant could not reasonably be expected to have discovered in time. such also is the case of a 'slip' where, as it is sometimes put, 'even homer nods'. such cases are likely to be very rare and it is likely also that they can be presented without any elaborate argument."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 555


    50th Session, 1983
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The mistake of law, to his mind, turns on failure to comply with an ILO circular [...] The plea is not admissible. To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's legal reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata. Even supposing that the Tribunal did not give due weight to the complainant's argument, the plea must fail."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 534

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of law;

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "Only a few pleas may be allowed in support of an application for review. They include an omission to take account of particular facts; a material error involving no exercise of judgment and thereby distinguishable from misappraisal of fact, which does not warrant review; an omission to pass judgment on a claim; and the discovery of a so-called 'new' fact, i.e. one which the applicant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 534

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review;



  • Judgment 554


    50th Session, 1983
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    the tribunal stated in judgment no. 486 that "the question for its decision was whether it was within its competence to enforce a rule of policy or practice. the tribunal found that there was such a rule, but that since it conflicted with a staff rule, it did not create an obligation which the tribunal was competent to enforce. [...] it is manifest from the judgment that the rule of policy or practice, by whatever evidence its existence was proved, was in this case unenforceable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 486

    Keywords:

    applicable law; application for review; difference; evidence; practice; precedence of rules; provision; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 536


    49th Session, 1982
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    the complainant contends that judgment 442 overlooked one of her claims raised in the additional claims for relief in her third complaint. "the plea fails. the tribunal gave a brief but adequate reply in paragraph 10 of its judgment when it said that it had no reason to alter its decision".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; omission to rule on a claim;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    the complainant once again applied for review of judgment no. 404 and judgment no. 442 [which concerned the review of judgment no. 404]. "review is an exceptional procedure [...] the complainant may not put forward repeatedly the same pleas in favour of review. in the applications now before the tribunal her pleas may be only such as she was unable to rely on in the first one or such as the tribunal have omitted to hear in judgment no. 442."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; exception;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    judgment no. 442 [a review of judgment no. 404] contains no recapitulation of the facts; the procedure followed was the summary one, "and the complaint was not communicated to the [organisation] for reply. there being no exchange of memoranda, no purpose would have been served by summarising the facts and submissions in the complaint since in any event the tribunal was required to review the whole case in order to answer the complainant's arguments."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; consequence; summary procedure;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The application for the correction of alleged material errors is not admissible. The parties have discussed one of the matters raised in the previous cases; the others, for which there is not a shred of evidence, do not constitute new facts.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "one of [the complainant's] arguments is that the tribunal was not correctly constituted when it delivered judgment no. 404" and that because of various other defects the judgment is null and void. "this is a plea she might have put forward in the written proceedings in her fourth complaint, which culminated in judgment no. 442. it is therefore not admissible."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; challenge of member; composition; inadmissible grounds for review; tribunal;

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


 
Last updated: 19.07.2019 ^ top