ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Admissible grounds for review (8, 14, 15, 16, 683, 802,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Admissible grounds for review
Total judgments found: 58

1, 2, 3 | next >

  • Judgment 4133


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3956.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    In his application for review of Judgment 3956, the complainant submits that the Tribunal made a mistake of fact involving no exercise of judgement and failed to take into account particular facts. Referring to Judgment 3819, he points out that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, these are admissible grounds for review. It should be noted that the case law also establishes that, in order to be admissible, such pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgment 3333, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3333, 3819, 3956

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; mistake of fact;



  • Judgment 4132


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3955.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    In his application for review of Judgment 3955, the complainant alleges that particular facts were not taken into account by the Tribunal. Referring to Judgment 3819, he points out that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, failure to take account of particular facts is an admissible ground for review. It should be noted that the case law also establishes that, in order to be admissible, such a plea must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgment 3333, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3333, 3819, 3955

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; failure to take account of material facts;



  • Judgment 4130


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3970.

    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 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 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, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, and 3473, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 4129


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3893.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its 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, 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 on which the author of the application was unable to rely 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, and 3473, under 3).
    The amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal introduced in 2016 in order to recognise the parties’ right to file an application for review has no bearing on the grounds on which such applications may be admitted according to the case law cited above.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4127


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3994.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, its judgments, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, 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 reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3305

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 4124


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3998.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, “pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its 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, 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 on which the author of the application was unable to rely 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 Judgment 3984, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3984

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4122


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4016.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, its judgments, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, 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 reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3305

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3984


    126th Session, 2018
    African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The ACP Group has filed an application for review and interpretation of Judgment 3845.

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its 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, 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 on which the author of the application was unable to rely 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, and 3473, under 3).
    The amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal introduced in 2016 in order to recognise the parties’ right to file an application for review has no bearing on the grounds on which such applications may be admitted according to the case law cited above. [...]
    However, in order to determine these questions of competence and receivability, the Tribunal made legal assessments which were duly explained in the reasoning of the judgment and which may not be challenged in an application for review. Thus, despite the misleading way in which they are presented, the pleas raised by the ACP Group cannot be construed as relating to material errors, but solely as an attempt to challenge the Tribunal’s informed rulings on these issues.

    Keywords:

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



  • 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 4

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant is simply expressing his disagreement with the Tribunal’s assessment of the facts and evidence. In so doing, he does not raise any admissible ground for review.

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; appraisal of facts;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant is in effect alleging that the Tribunal made an incorrect assessment of the facts. Such a plea does not constitute an admissible ground for review.

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; appraisal of facts;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [T]he plea that the Tribunal misinterpreted the evidence in the file does not constitute an admissible ground for review.

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts;



  • 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.

    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 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3851

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds 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 2

    Extract:

    In his submissions the complainant rightly recalls that, according to the Tribunal’s case law, an application for review of one of its judgments may, exceptionally, be allowed, but only on limited grounds. Indeed, the only admissible grounds for review are a failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact involving no exercise of judgement, omission to rule on a claim and, lastly, the discovery of a new fact that the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the original proceedings (see Judgment 3333, under 4, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3333

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds 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.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal states that judgments are final and without appeal, but that the Tribunal can nonetheless consider applications for review. Consistent precedent has it that they carry res judicata authority 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 Judgment 3719, under 4, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3719

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review;



  • 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 3

    Extract:

    As the basis for his application for review, the complainant contends that the Tribunal omitted to rule on the “subsidiary argument” supporting his request for conversion of his limited-term appointment. In so doing, he alleges that the Tribunal omitted to rule on a plea. However, [...] that is not an admissible ground for review in any event.

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a plea;



  • 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.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are “final and without appeal” and have res judicata authority. 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 reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 3390


    118th Session, 2014
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The application for review is summarily dismissed as none of the alleged grounds calls into question the Tribunal’s decision.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3252


    116th Session, 2014
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for a period of one year instead of three years on the basis of an adverse evaluation report.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "It is necessary to make clear that the Tribunal’s role is not to adjudicate on the question of whether assessments made in appraisal reports are correct or whether discretionary decisions to employ a staff member on a fixed-term contract for one or three years are correct. Discretionary decisions of these types, involving assessment and evaluation, are entrusted to the responsible officers of the international organisations within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These types of decisions can only be set aside if they involve some breach of a formal or procedural rule, there is a mistake of fact or law or some material has been overlooked, or a plainly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts, or if there is a misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3006, consideration 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3006

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; discretion; disregard of essential fact; fixed-term; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; performance report; procedural flaw; rating; work appraisal;



  • 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 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;

1, 2, 3 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.06.2019 ^ top