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

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



  • Judgment 1529


    81st Session, 1996
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 442 [...] and in many later judgments the Tribunal has declared an alleged mistake of law to be an inadmissible plea for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds that the Tribunal's legal reasoning was wrong would be to let anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision question it indefinitely in disregard of the res judicata rule. [...] The application must be summarily dismissed as clearly irreceivable under Article 7 of the Tribunal's Rules."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; finality of judgment; iloat statute; mistake of law; res judicata; summary procedure;



  • 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 1504


    81st Session, 1996
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "It is not appropriate for [the complainant] to make a counterclaim to damages [for the moral injury allegedly caused to her] in the context of her submissions on an application by the organization for review [...] The claim arises out of a separate cause of action and is one that she should pursue separately."

    Keywords:

    application for review; claim; counterclaim; moral injury; new claim;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    For a plea alleging discovery of a new fact to succeed the fact must be one that the party seeking review "could not reasonably have been expected to discover in time and plead in the original case."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1500


    80th Session, 1996
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    In an earlier judgment the Tribunal held a disputed report to be lawful "so the issue is res judicata and not now open to appeal. [The complainant] cannot properly impute 'malice aforethought' to the reporting officer because he cites no fact he could not have relied on in his earlier complaint and which might afford valid grounds for review of [the judgment in question]."

    Keywords:

    application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; 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 1410


    78th Session, 1995
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    See Judgment 1409, consideration 7.

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for review; organisation; reply;



  • Judgment 1409


    78th Session, 1995
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "In the context of its reply to the complainants' application for execution the organization makes its own application for review of the judgment. Its application is refused. It should properly have filed a separate application, not sought review in the context of its reply."

    Keywords:

    application for execution; application for review;



  • 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 1377


    78th Session, 1995
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks review of a judgment in which the tribunal dismissed his case as time-barred. He alleges the existence of a new fact which would at the time have led the Tribunal to declare his complaint receivable. "The Tribunal rejects as incredible the evidence tendered by the complainant. Accordingly it applies the procedure provided for in Article 7 of its Rules and summarily dismisses the application as clearly devoid of merit."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES

    Keywords:

    application for review; evidence; lack of evidence; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; 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 1295


    75th Session, 1993
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "An application for review of a judgment obviously may not afford an opportunity for making new claims. The Tribunal therefore declines to entertain claims (2), (3) and (7) of the present application because they are new."

    Keywords:

    application for review; new claim;



  • 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:

    "Judgments are 'final and without appeal' according to Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal and they carry the authority of res judicata. The Tribunal will therefore entertain an application for review only in quite exceptional circumstances. As it has stated many times, and in detail in Judgment 442 [...], the admissible grounds for review of a judgment are strictly limited: they are failure to take account of some material fact, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new essential fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the applicant's plea must be such as to affect the original ruling."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; iloat statute; res judicata;

    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;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The complainants dispute the Tribunal's finding in Judgment 1190, under 15, that no breach of the methodology which they were relying on had caused them any injury. [...] Since Judgment 1190 therefore shows a mistake of fact, it is subject to review in that respect".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1190

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; mistake of fact; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1253


    75th Session, 1993
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant is seeking the review of a judgment in which the Tribunal dismissed a prior application for review. "He is yet again seeking the rehearing of his claims, besides adding a fresh one to after-service medical insurance coverage. He puts forward no admissible grounds whatever for review of Judgment 1027 and his application for review must therefore be rejected in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in Article 8(3) of the Rules of court."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 8(3) OF THE RULES
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1027

    Keywords:

    application for review; new claim; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 1252


    75th Session, 1993
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The Tribunal's rulings "have the force of res judicata and may not ordinarily be challenged. only in exceptional circumstances will they be subject to review, on the grounds of 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."

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; res judicata;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant is seeking the review of a judgment which already refused to review the original ruling. "The complainant does no more than put forward again the same arguments as those that supported her first application, which Judgment 1165 dismissed. She cites no essential fact that she was unable to rely on in her original complaint. In sum her application offers no admissible grounds whatever for review [...], is 'clearly irreceivable' within the meaning of Article 8(3) of the Rules of Court, and must therefore be dismissed in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in that article."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 8(3) OF THE RULES
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1165

    Keywords:

    application for review; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 1240


    74th Session, 1993
    International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    The complainant objects to the Tribunal's decision in an interlocutory order to dismiss his claims in part. He alleges that "the circumstances of the case prevented him from pleading his case in full. He makes out that the Tribunal cannot have given due account to his pleas and may have committed an error of judgment. Those comments are not admissible. The complainant was given, in keeping with the Rules of Court, the opportunity of stating his views in full [...] so there is no basis for his challenging the authority of the interlocutory order insofar as it made a final ruling on most of his claims."

    Keywords:

    application for review; interlocutory order; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1209


    74th Session, 1993
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has often said - for example in Judgments 442 [...] and 1178 [...] - neither its Statute nor the Rules of Court provide for review of its rulings. Although it will nevertheless entertain an application for review, only on exceptional grounds will it do so because it will thereby be derogating from the res judicata rule. Some pleas in favour of review are admissible and some are not."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1178

    Keywords:

    application for review; case law; iloat statute; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1178


    73rd Session, 1992
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's rulings carry the authority of res judicata. An application for review will succeed only in exceptional cases and several pleas in favour of review will not be entertained at all. They include an alleged mistake of law [...] other pleas in favour of review may be entertained if they are such as to affect the ruling. they include an omission to take account of particular facts".

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; mistake of law; res judicata;

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


 
Last updated: 15.07.2021 ^ top