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: 172
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
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;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; internal remedies exhausted; summary procedure;
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 keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; permanent appointment; termination of employment;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that an application for review does not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620
Keywords:
application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a 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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; fixed-term; termination of employment;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that an application for review does not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620
Keywords:
application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a 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 23
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that an application for review does not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620
Keywords:
application for execution; application for review; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Consideration 19
Extract:
With respect to the UPU’s request that the Tribunal rescind its decision with respect to the complainant’s reinstatement and award him material damages instead, there is no reviewable error that would allow the Tribunal to grant that request.
Keywords:
application for review; material damages; reinstatement;
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;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The application for review is also irreceivable, as the UPU does not raise any of the admissible grounds for review set out above.
Keywords:
application for review;
Consideration 17
Extract:
In its pleas the UPU submits that “the UPU must stress that the [Tribunal] has made a decision which clearly sits outside its purview and seeks to call into question the mandate and authority of the [Council of Administration] as the sovereign governing body of the UPU between Congresses. If upheld, the Administration will have no choice but to take the matter to that governing body, as the [Director General] is in no way authorized to rescind [Council of Administration] decisions. Such an outcome might even lead to significant political implications of a wider character, including a review by UPU member countries of remedial mechanisms available to staff members for impugning decisions of the [Director General]” (emphasis added). This is a subtle threat to the Tribunal but a threat nonetheless. As an independent judicial body, the Tribunal is constituted by judges who must act without fear or favour. Such a threat must be ignored. Also, the threat if acted upon would subvert the operation of the rule of law at an international level. That is because dissatisfaction with a judgment lawfully rendered by a judicial body should never ground the rejection of the jurisdiction of that body. This is unacceptable behaviour by an international organization. The disdain the organization shows for the orderly resolution of justiciable disputes subverts the very institutions established to resolve them and the framework within which they operate. That is even more so as the organization’s understanding of the judgment in question is misconceived.
Keywords:
application for review; competence of tribunal; threat;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; reinstatement;
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;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he order contained in the decision of Judgment 3927 was clear and the application for review did not suspend the execution of the judgment (see Judgment 1620, consideration 7). The execution depended on the payment of an established amount of money and the UPU had to execute the judgment within one month from the date of its delivery (see Judgment 3152, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 3152, 3927
Keywords:
application for review; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; suspension of the execution of a judgment;
Judgment 3988
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3951.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3951
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 3987
126th Session, 2018
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3913.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3913
Keywords:
application for interpretation; application for review; complaint dismissed;
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 keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3845
Keywords:
application filed by the organisation; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint dismissed;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
