L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies
ILO-fr-strap
Plan du site | Contact English
> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par mots-clés du thésaurus > recours en révision

Judgment No. 1036

Decision

THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.

Consideration 4

Extract:

"Whereas an alleged omission to take account of a particular fact is an admissible plea in favour of review, an alleged misappraisal of the facts is not. Another inadmissible ground is an alleged mistake of law. Furthermore, an application based on the admission of new evidence may be entertained provided that the complainant discovered that evidence too late to be able to cite it in the original pleadings and provided that it is relevant."

Keywords

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

Consideration 7, Summary

Extract:

The complainant argues that material errors "misled the Tribunal". In Judgment 917 the Tribunal held that she had no right in law to a professional category post. She contends that FAO Rules provide for making good the lack of a university degree with proper experience and that she did qualify in law for such a post. But that is an alleged mistake of law, and not of fact; as such it does not constitute admissible grounds for review.

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 917

Keywords

application for review; material error; mistake of law

Consideration 8

Extract:

"The complainant says that the Tribunal did not rule on her claim to damages for 'psychological' injury. The case law recognises no special head of damages of that kind: damages may be either for material or for moral injury." Judgment 917 having expressly rejected such a claim, the complainant's allegation is unfounded.

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 917

Keywords

application for review; omission to rule on a claim



 
Dernière mise à jour: 28.08.2017 ^ haut