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

Res judicata (94, 95, 96, 97,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Res judicata
Total judgments found: 137

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >

  • Judgment 4204


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Appeals Committee to close the case in light of Judgment 3893.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal’s decision in Judgment 3893 is res judicata, the Appeals Committee rightly determined that it could not re-open the case.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3893

    Keywords:

    internal procedure; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4202


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgments 3887 and 3986 and contests the implied rejection of his request for the execution of those judgments.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for execution; res judicata; summary procedure;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    In Judgment 3986 delivered in public on 26 June 2018 on the application for execution of Judgment 3887, the Tribunal provided clear explanations as to how Judgment 3887 must be interpreted and executed. These issues cannot be reopened again.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887, 3986

    Keywords:

    res judicata;



  • Judgment 4187


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4052.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant’s request for clarification under (a) in consideration 3 [...] is an attempt to relitigate a question which was already decided in Judgment 4052 and which is therefore res judicata.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4052

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4183


    128th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to select him for three positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    The principle of res judicata, relied on by the ICC, serves at least two important purposes. One is to ensure that courts are not called on to determine again causes of action that were resolved in an earlier judgment. There is a clear public benefit in courts being freed from the task of doing so, particularly given the demand on courts both internationally and nationally to resolve disputes expeditiously, often in the face of increasing numbers of cases requiring resolution. The principle is intended to create finality in litigation. Another purpose is to ensure that a party against whom proceedings are brought is not required to defend again, with the attendant cost and inconvenience, a case earlier defended and resolved, irrespective of who was successful in the earlier proceedings. In circumstances where a party is successful in the earlier proceedings and obtains a remedy, no obvious public purpose is served in enabling the litigation of a case that may (though may not) result in the same remedy.

    The Tribunal, in its case law, has identified the principle of res judicata as operating in circumstances where, in later litigation, the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case (see, for example, Judgments 1216, consideration 3, 2993, consideration 6, and 3248, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 2993, 3248

    Keywords:

    res judicata;



  • Judgment 4142


    128th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions not to directly appoint them to posts which became vacant during the two-year period following the termination of their appointments deriving from the abolition of their posts.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    res judicata;



  • 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 4128


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the EPO who was dismissed for misconduct, requests the payment of his full salary from July 2017 onwards.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    res judicata; summary procedure;



  • 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 4097


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to end her participation in the reassignment process and to terminate her fixed-term appointment further to the abolition of her post.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    One of the orders made by the Tribunal was that “[a]ll other claims are dismissed”. This order reflected a final determination by the Tribunal, in WHO’s favour, of the complainant’s challenge to the abolition of her post. The complainant is bound by that final determination and cannot challenge it in subsequent proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3248, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3248

    Keywords:

    res judicata;



  • Judgment 4093


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3689.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    It should be recalled that the Tribunal’s judgments, which, under Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and which, furthermore, have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, consideration 12, and 3152, consideration 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, consideration 6, and 3635, consideration 4). The parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments (see, for example, Judgments 2684, consideration 6, and 3823, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3823

    Keywords:

    application for execution; good faith; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4092


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to order WHO to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Judgment 3871 and, in particular, to reinstate him with all legal consequences.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    It should be recalled that the Tribunal’s judgments, which according to Article VI of its Statute are “final and without appeal” and which have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, consideration 12, and 3152, consideration 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, consideration 6, and 3635, consideration 4). The parties must work together in good faith to execute the judgment (see, for example, Judgments 2684, consideration 6, and 3823, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3823

    Keywords:

    application for execution; good faith; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4086


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    [I]nasmuch as the complainant was awarded moral damages in Judgment 4084 for essentially the same breach, moral damages will not be awarded for this claim in the present complaint.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4084

    Keywords:

    moral damages; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4085


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her harassment grievance.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [S]ome of the allegations in the present complaint have also been foundational subjects of Judgments by the Tribunal and are now res judicata (see, for example, Judgment 3950, under 6 and 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3950

    Keywords:

    res judicata;



  • Judgment 4079


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. 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 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. 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, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897

    Keywords:

    application for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4078


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. 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 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. 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, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897

    Keywords:

    application for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4077


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. 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 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. 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, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897

    Keywords:

    application for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4076


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed and application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3927 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. 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 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. 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, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, 3473, consideration 3, 3634, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, and 3897, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897

    Keywords:

    application for review; res judicata;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top