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 1174


    73rd Session, 1992
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal said in Judgment 1036, only in exceptional circumstances will it entertain an application for review since to allow one is to derogate from the res judicata rule. What is more, the complainant may not submit the same pleas more than once: the Tribunal will entertain in the context of her present application only the pleas that she was unable to put forward in support of the earlier one."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1036

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that a "new fact [...] would have become obvious had the Tribunal allowed her application for hearings since evidence from the witnesses she wanted to call would have been more telling than her own written submissions. There is nothing in her application to suggest that such evidence would have established a new fact of the kind the case law requires if review of the original judgment was to be warranted. And in any event failure to admit evidence does not afford admissible grounds for review".

    Keywords:

    application for review; failure to admit evidence; oral proceedings;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "What [the complainant] is alleging is a mistake of law, and that does not afford admissible grounds for review. If it did, a party who was dissatisfied with a ruling might go on challenging it in defiance of the res judicata rule."

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of law; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1165


    73rd Session, 1992
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has time and again affirmed, its judgments have the force of res judicata and may not ordinarily be challenged. Only in exceptional cases will they be subject to review, on the grounds of failure to take account of essential facts, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the discovery of an essential fact the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings."

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law; res judicata;



  • Judgment 1060


    70th Session, 1991
    African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant has four pleas in support of his application for review of Judgment 1003: a material error, his discovery of new facts, the disregard of particular facts and failure to rule on his claims. Consideration of his pleas led the Tribunal to conclude that his application was an idle attempt at challenging a ruling that has the authority of res judicata.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1003

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1059


    70th Session, 1991
    African Training and Research Centre in Administration for Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3, Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant relies on provisions in the Convention on the establishment of the organisation's component bodies which he regards as new facts that warrant the review of Judgment 1002. Those provisions can scarcely be treated as new facts since the complainant obviously did not learn about them after the Tribunal's ruling.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1002

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1057


    70th Session, 1991
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    In seeking review of Judgment 999, the complainant contends that in making him an award of 500 United States dollars in damages on account of the breach of due process in the internal appeal proceedings the Tribunal ignored his claim for costs.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 999

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 1036


    69th Session, 1990
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "The complainant says that the Tribunal did not rule on her claim to damages for 'psychological' injury. The case law recognises no special head of damages of that kind: damages may be either for material or for moral injury." Judgment 917 having expressly rejected such a claim, the complainant's allegation is unfounded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 917

    Keywords:

    application for review; omission to rule on a claim;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Whereas an alleged omission to take account of a particular fact is an admissible plea in favour of review, an alleged misappraisal of the facts is not. Another inadmissible ground is an alleged mistake of law. Furthermore, an application based on the admission of new evidence may be entertained provided that the complainant discovered that evidence too late to be able to cite it in the original pleadings and provided that it is relevant."

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of facts; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;

    Consideration 7, Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant argues that material errors "misled the Tribunal". In Judgment 917 the Tribunal held that she had no right in law to a professional category post. She contends that FAO Rules provide for making good the lack of a university degree with proper experience and that she did qualify in law for such a post. But that is an alleged mistake of law, and not of fact; as such it does not constitute admissible grounds for review.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 917

    Keywords:

    application for review; material error; mistake of law;



  • 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;



  • Judgment 979


    66th Session, 1989
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant's application "merely alleges misinterpretation of the EPO's Service Regulations and guidelines. That is an assertion of error of law which, according to the long-established case-law, does not constitute valid grounds for review".

    Keywords:

    application for review; interpretation; mistake of law;



  • Judgment 950


    65th Session, 1988
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "To justify review, there must be evidence of some exceptional circumstance, such as accident or inadvertence, cogent enough to displace the principle of finality of judgment."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 948


    65th Session, 1988
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The purpose of the present application is to get the Tribunal to change its mind by seeking to refute its reasoning and show the case law it cited to be irrelevant. What he is alleging is a mistake of law, and that does not constitute admissible grounds for review."

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of law;



  • Judgment 912


    64th Session, 1988
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3-4

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal dismissed [the complainant's] first two claims to relief and ruled that consequently the other two failed as well: it therefore ruled on all her claims. But what she is in fact alleging is that the Tribunal failed to rule on her plea that the Administration had not based its decision on the desk audit.
    [F]ailure to rule on a plea does not afford admissible grounds for review. But in any event the complainant is mistaken. Implicit in the Tribunal's ruling was a decision that failure by the Administration to base its decision on the desk audit was not unlawful. The Tribunal therefore did not omit to rule on the fourth plea."

    Keywords:

    application for review; omission to rule on a plea;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "There are several pleas for review which the Tribunal will entertain provided that its judgment was affected, and they include a material error, i.e. a mistaken finding of fact which involves no exercise of judgment [unlike a mistake in appraisal of facts, which involves exercise of judgment]."

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; material error;



  • Judgment 898


    64th Session, 1988
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The claims are irreceivable because "they are a pointless attempt to get review of decisions that the Tribunal ruled on in Judgments 732 and 733. [...] [The complainant is] pleading misinterpretation of the text, and that would be a mistake of law, which is not an admissible reason for reviewing a text that carries the authority of res judicata."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 732, 733

    Keywords:

    application for review; interpretation; mistake of law; res judicata; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 860


    63rd Session, 1987
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    "Desirable though it may be that the various bodies that hear disputes in the international civil service take account of each other's rulings, each of them has a legal context of its own and will rule by its own lights on any case before it."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 657

    Keywords:

    applicable law; application for review; case law; effect; european court of justice (ecj); iloat; judgment of the tribunal; law of european communities;

    Summary

    Extract:

    As to identity in the cause of action, Mr [A.] notes that the Tribunal had in part rejected the complainants' plea of breach of good faith on the grounds that they had taken up duty after the new criteria had taken effect. Mr [A.] contends that this reasoning does not apply to him insofar as he had taken up duty before the change in rules. The Tribunal acknowledges that there is on this point a new cause of action; however it holds on the merits that a staff member has no right, save in exceptional cases, to demand that the rules on promotion in force at the time of appointment should never be modified.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 657

    Keywords:

    acquired right; amendment to the rules; application for review; appointment; date; effective date; general principle; good faith; practice; promotion; provision; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 859


    63rd Session, 1987
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The application is irreceivable because the applicant is seeking, without offering a shred of new evidence, to challenge a decision the Tribunal handed down after letting him have his full say in written proceedings."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 785

    Keywords:

    application for review; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 788


    60th Session, 1986
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has not thus far set a time limit for seeking review of its judgments. In this case, it considers the delay of nine years entirely unreasonable.

    Keywords:

    application for review; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 749


    59th Session, 1986
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant accuses the Tribunal of having disregarded specific facts. As there is no evidence to support his assertions, the application is rejected.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 588, 645, 681

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of facts;



  • Judgment 748


    59th Session, 1986
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Whether reinstatement is inadvisable is an issue of law. A mistake of law does not constitute admissible grounds for review, and the Tribunal's decision on the point, even if it was wrong, is not subject to review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 665

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of law; reinstatement;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "[A] new fact will constitute admissible grounds for an application for review only provided that 1) it would have had some effect on the Tribunal's decision and 2) the applicant was unable, for reasons beyond his control, to rely on it in the original proceedings."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 665

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "As is clear from precedent the absence of a ruling on issues that are not material affords no grounds for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 665

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 705


    57th Session, 1985
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Several pleas are inadmissible as grounds for review, such as allegations of error of law or misappraisal of the evidence. Nor does the failure to hear evidence or to rule on pleas submitted by the parties afford admissible grounds for review. Other pleas may be admissible provided they may have an effect on the Tribunal's decision. Examples are failure to take account of specific facts, material error [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 607

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 704


    57th Session, 1985
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's judgments [...] are [...] subject to review on application either by the complainant insofar as he is not satisfied or by the defendant organisation when its decision is set aside or it is ordered to pay damages."

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    See Judgment 705, consideration 2.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 705

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 658


    55th Session, 1985
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The construction which the Tribunal put on [the provision] is an issue of law. An appraisal of the facts which is based on legal reasoning does not afford grounds for review. In any event the Tribunal's reasoning on the issue did not afford the basis for its decision to dismiss the complaint, as indeed is clear from the inclusion of the words 'en outre' in the authentic text."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 617

    Keywords:

    application for review; interpretation; mistake of law;

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's judgments are subject to review only in exceptional cases. Failure to take account of a specific fact, a material error, failure to rule on a claim or the discovery of a new fact may be treated as admissible grounds for review; but an error of law, misappraisal of evidence, failure to take account of evidence and failure to answer a plea may not."

    Keywords:

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

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


 
Last updated: 15.07.2021 ^ top