Inadmissible grounds for review (13, 9, 11, 17, 567, 757,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Inadmissible grounds for review
Total judgments found: 52
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
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; complaint dismissed; 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; complaint dismissed; 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; complaint dismissed; 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;
Judgment 1507
81st Session, 1996
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent the Tribunal will allow an application for review only in exceptional cases. Its judgments are, as Article VI of its Statute says, 'final and without appeal' and carry the authority of res judicata. Admissible grounds for review are strictly limited: failure to take account of a material fact, an error of fact which involves no exercise of judgment, failure to rule on a claim, and the discovery of a new fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the plea must be such as to affect the original ruling: see Judgment 1255 [...] under 2." Inadmissible pleas for review are a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, a wrong appraisal of the facts and failure to rule on pleas: see, for example, Judgment 442 [...], also under 2."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1255
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of evidence; finality of judgment; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1421
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgment 442, considerations 2 and 3
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;
Judgment 1387
78th Session, 1995
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The present applications mentioned no new facts. "That being so, and having communicated the applications [...] to the defendant for information in accordance with Article 7(1) of its Rules, the Tribunal dismisses them as clearly irreceivable within the meaning of 7(2) and does not order adversarial proceedings."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
application for review; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; summary procedure;
Judgment 1353
77th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
See Judgments 442 and 1309.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1309
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1348
77th Session, 1994
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant "has not pleaded any of the grounds on which an application for review will be entertained and which are set out, for example, in Judgments 442 [...] and 704 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 1309
76th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Organization is seeking to adduce additional evidence, not of new facts, but of circumstances which the Organization could and should, if it so wished, have relied on in its pleadings on the original case." The plea is inadmissible.
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgments 442 and 704, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application filed by the organisation; application for review; case law; exception; general principle; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; organisation; res judicata;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The defendant Organization is seeking review of a judgment on the grounds that the Tribunal's interpretation of one of UNESCO's rules overlooked well-established practice. The Tribunal interpreted that provision as it saw fit. "What the Organization is seeking is review on the grounds of an alleged mistake of law, and that is not an admissible plea for review."
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; practice;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In sum, according to the principles that the Tribunal consistently abides by in ruling on [applications for review], UNESCO's allegations do not amount to admissible pleas for review [...] The Tribunal therefore summarily dismisses the Organization's application as being clearly irreceivable within the meaning of Article 8(3) of the rules of court."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 8(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; summary procedure;
Judgment 1294
75th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has often said, only in exceptional circumstances will it entertain an application for review. There are several pleas in favour of review that it will not admit. They are an alleged mistake of law, an alleged mistake in the appraisal of the facts, failure to admit evidence and absence of comment on the parties' pleas. "Other pleas in favour of review may be admitted if they are such as to affect the Tribunal's decision. They include an omission to take account of essential facts; a material error...; an omission to rule on a claim; and the emergence of a so-called 'new' fact, i.e. a fact that the complainant discovered too late to be able to cite in the original proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgment 442, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
application for review; case law; inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a plea;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"To accuse the Tribunal of misconstruing a provision of the [FAO] Manual is to charge it with a mistake of law. The plea is not an admissible one in an application for review."
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 1255
75th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The grounds which are not admissible for an application for review are an alleged mistake of law, misinterpretation of the facts, failure to admit evidence and omission to comment on a plea."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 980
66th Session, 1989
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments carry the authority of res judicata and it will review them only in exceptional cases. It will not review on the grounds of an alleged mistake of law or misappraisal of the facts or because it had failed to comment on all the pleas submitted by the parties. A review may be permitted where there was an omission of fact involving no exercise of judgment - as distinct from a mistaken appraisal of the facts - an omission to rule on a claim or the discovery of a 'new' fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant is in fact asking the Tribunal to change its mind about its interpretation of the rules. The reasons he puts forward are essentially that its judgment showed misappraisal of the facts and a mistake in law in interpreting the rules and failed to endorse his own interpretation. Those are not admissible grounds for review."
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; inadmissible grounds for review; interpretation; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
