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

Inadmissible grounds for review (13, 9, 11, 17, 567, 757,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Inadmissible grounds for review
Total judgments found: 41

1, 2, 3 | next >

  • Judgment 4198


    128th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4004.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] argues that the Tribunal committed a material error when it concluded [...] that he had not provided cogent evidence that the decisions to abolish his post and terminate his service were taken in breach of his right to equal treatment. This, however, is an inadmissible ground for review as the arguments and the evidence which the complainant presents to support it merely invite the Tribunal to reconsider its finding on this issue on the ground that it has, in effect, misinterpreted the facts.

    Keywords:

    inadmissible grounds for review; material error;



  • 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;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he plea of a mistake of law is not an admissible ground for review (see Judgment 1529, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1529

    Keywords:

    inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;



  • 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 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; complaint dismissed; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 3722


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the review of Judgment 3583.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal observes that the third stated ground of review: failure to adjudge the issues involved in light of the Tribunal’s case law, does not fall within the admissible grounds for review that are set out in the Tribunal’s case law.

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 3720


    123rd Session, 2017
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the review of Judgment 3510.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant’s plea that the Tribunal “passed over a number of significant facts” is tantamount to disagreeing with the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence in the file. It is therefore irreceivable in an application for review.

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 3719


    123rd Session, 2017
    Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The CTA seeks the review of Judgment 3437.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    It is plain from the contents of the application for review that it has been filed only as an attempt to re-open issues already settled in the above-mentioned judgment.

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 3718


    123rd Session, 2017
    Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The CTA seeks the review of Judgment 3436.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    It is plain from the contents of the application for review that it has been filed only as an attempt to re-open issues already settled in the above-mentioned judgment.

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 3389


    118th Session, 2014
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal summarily dismissed the application for review on the grounds that no new argument was raised by the complainant.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The grounds for the complainant’s application for review essentially repeat the arguments he submitted in his previous complaints, which were fully considered by the Tribunal prior to the taking of its decisions and the publication of its judgments [...]. No new argument has been raised. The application for review is therefore devoid of merit [...]."

    Keywords:

    inadmissible grounds for review; new plea;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3387


    118th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The application for review is summarily dismissed as the new fact relied on by the complainant did not call into question the Tribunal’s decision.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 3305


    116th Session, 2014
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Application for review of Judgment 2913 in which the Tribunal allegedly minimized the discriminatory and disproportionate nature of the sanction imposed on the complainant.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2913

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 2826


    107th Session, 2009
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "There was nothing to preclude the complainant from raising the argument based on the French text of the Staff Regulations in his first complaint. He was then armed with the recommendation and reasons of the Appeal Board, both of which were based on the English text of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. Further, as he was then seeking recognition of his same-sex partner as a dependent spouse, it was for him to advance argument as to why that course should be taken rather than the more limited course recommended by the Appeal Board. Moreover, the grounds on which the Tribunal may review its judgments are limited to «failure to take account of some essential fact, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the later discovery of some essential fact that the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings» (see Judgment 1252 and also Judgments 442, 555 and 649). The argument based on the French text is, in essence, an argument that the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules as barring recognition of the complainant's partner as his dependent spouse. That is not an admissible ground for the review of a judgment (see Judgment 2029). Nor is it a ground for review that, on 3 September 2007 and after Judgment 2643 was delivered, the complainant married his partner in British Columbia in accordance with the law of Canada. It would entirely defeat the principles of finality and res judicata if subsequent facts could be taken into account on an application for review of a judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 555, 649, 1252, 2029, 2643

    Keywords:

    application for review; dependant; finality of judgment; inadmissible grounds for review; language of rule; marital status; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata; same-sex marriage;



  • Judgment 2586


    102nd Session, 2007
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[A]s pointed out in Judgment 442, 'the allegedly libellous nature of a judgment affords no grounds for reviewing it'."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; case law; iloat; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal;



  • Judgment 2213


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6(a)

    Extract:

    The Tribunal had dismissed the complaint by which the complainant impugned the non-renewal of his appointment. In his application for review of that judgment, he submits that a post intended for him had been mentioned in the draft programme and budget and that, since the document had been approved as it stood by the General Conference, this implied his appointment to the post at issue. "The question arises as to whether such an argument affords grounds for review. It is not necessary to answer that question, considering that the fact does not appear to be decisive, since the adoption of a budget could [...] not be interpreted as a decision to make an appointment."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; admissible grounds for review; application for review; appointment; assignment; consequence; contract; decision; executive body; inadmissible grounds for review; interpretation; non-renewal of contract; post;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    In his application for review "the complainant contends that the Tribunal failed to rule on requests for the disclosure of documents by the organization [...] A plea that the Tribunal failed to rule on claims is related to a complainant's submissions on the merits; by contrast, decisions by the Tribunal on requests for the disclosure of documents concern the administration and appraisal of evidence and cannot, in principle, give rise to review."

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of evidence; disclosure of evidence; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a claim;



  • 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;

1, 2, 3 | next >


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top