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

Application for review (7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 683, 802, 12, 13, 9, 11, 17, 567, 757, 744, 754, 803, 882,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Application for review
Total judgments found: 161

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >

  • Judgment 4442


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4329.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4440


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4370.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4436


    132nd Session, 2021
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4221.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 4414


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants filed applications for review of Judgment 4195.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    One of the complainants, Mr K., requests that the application be examined by judges who were not involved in Judgment 4195. This request was rejected by the President of the Tribunal, though he decided that the application for review will be considered by a panel which is not entirely the same as the panel which adopted Judgment 4195.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4195

    Keywords:

    application for review; conflict of interest;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 4409


    132nd Session, 2021
    Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4215.

    Considerations 3-5

    Extract:

    It should be noted that OTIF, by a decision adopted by its Administrative Committee at its session on 27 and 28 June 2017 and notified by its Secretary General to the Director-General of the International Labour Office (ILO) by a letter of 17 January 2018, has withdrawn its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
    In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, as set out in Judgments 1043, consideration 3, and 4141, considerations 2 to 4, that withdrawal took effect on the date of the deliberation of the Governing Body of the ILO taking note of the decision in question, which in the present case took place on 13 March 2018.
    Although the Tribunal had jurisdiction to rule on the complaint that gave rise to Judgment 4215, which had been filed before that date and which OTIF had expressly excluded from the scope of its withdrawal decision, since that date, the Tribunal has no longer been competent to hear new complaints against that Organisation.
    However, it must be considered that, where, as in this case, the Tribunal has delivered a judgment on a complaint against an international organisation which has since withdrawn from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, it nevertheless remains competent to hear any applications for interpretation of that judgment. The Tribunal is, by definition, the only body capable of interpreting its judgments, should that be necessary. For similar reasons, the Tribunal also remains competent to hear applications for execution or review that may be brought in respect of a judgment delivered in the same circumstances.
    Notwithstanding the date on which it was filed, this application does therefore fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and it is noted that the Organisation does not raise any objections on this point in its reply.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1043, 4141, 4215

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; competence of tribunal;



  • Judgment 4367


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgments 4255 and 4256.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4366


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant applies for the review of Judgment 4256.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4365


    131st Session, 2021
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant requests the review of Judgment 4224.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; material error; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4355


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the review of Judgment 4182.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4338


    131st Session, 2021
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgment 3866.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    It 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;



  • Judgment 4328


    130th Session, 2020
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant applies for review of Judgment 4056.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4327


    130th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant applies for review of Judgment 4172.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The arguments relied on by the complainant in his application for review, and the evidence which he presents to support them, merely invite the Tribunal to reconsider its findings on these issues on the grounds that it has, in effect, misinterpreted the facts and/or misapplied the law. Although the complainant attempts to base its application for review on the alleged Tribunal’s failure to take into account material facts, his submissions essentially seek to call into question the Tribunal’s exercise of judgement in assessing the evidence. The grounds for review advanced by the complainant are simply an attempt to re-litigate matters that have already been decided. As noted above, such pleas afford no grounds for review.

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4199, consideration 2, its judgments may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The rationale for this was stated, for example, in Judgments 3815, consideration 4, and 3899, consideration 3, as follows:
    “[P]ursuant 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 Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3815, 3899, 4199

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 4199


    128th Session, 2019
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4022.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant contends, as a second ground for review, that the Tribunal committed a material error. He submits that it made a mistaken finding of fact involving an error of judgement [...]. [T]his is [...] an inadmissible ground for review, as it essentially seeks to call into question the Tribunal’s exercise of judgement in assessing the evidence. [S]uch a plea affords no grounds for review.

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4022

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4004

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 4175


    128th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3932.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    It 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 a 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, the pleas or grounds on which review is sought 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;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As to the award of costs, the complainant’s disagreement with the amount of the award is not a ground on which a judgment is subject to review.

    Keywords:

    application for review; costs;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed;



  • 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 keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; mistake of fact; summary procedure;



  • 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 keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; failure to take account of material facts; summary procedure;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; material error; summary procedure;

    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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;

    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 8

    Extract:

    The complainant also bases her application for review on the discovery of new facts on which she argues that she was unable to rely in the original proceedings. The complainant’s argument in that regard is related to documents contained in or allegedly missing from her CERN medical file that she consulted after Judgment 3994 was delivered in public.
    As recalled in consideration 2, [...] the Tribunal, in Judgment 3994, awarded the complainant moral damages in the amount of 5,000 Swiss francs for the injury caused by the fact that she had only been given partial access to her medical file. Raising arguments based on the content of her medical file that she consulted following the public delivery of Judgment 3994 cannot afford the complainant grounds for review of that judgment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994

    Keywords:

    application for review; medical records; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; illness; service-incurred; summary procedure;

    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;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >


 
Last updated: 21.10.2021 ^ top