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 649


    55th Session, 1985
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "What [the Organisation] is really saying is that the Tribunal misapplied the rules, and an allegation of a mistake of law does not constitute admissible grounds for review since it is an attack on the principle of res judicata."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 564, 565, 614

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of law;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "A judgment carries the force of res judicata from the date on which it is handed down. Though it is subject to review thereafter, the Tribunal will review it only in exceptional circumstances. Some pleas in support of an application for review, such as misappraisal of evidence, are inadmissible. Others, such as material error or the discovery of new facts, are not; but for the application to succeed they must be such as to affect the decision."

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; exception; judgment of the tribunal; misinterpretation of the facts; res judicata;



  • Judgment 645


    54th Session, 1984
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "An application for review is an exceptional procedure and is admissible only in strictly defined circumstances, for example where specific facts have been disregarded or so-called 'new' facts discovered. A new fact is a fact or an item of evidence which the applicant did not become aware of in time to be able to rely on it in the original proceedings."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 588

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal will not review a judgment to take account of a new claim."

    Keywords:

    application for review; new claim;



  • Judgment 610


    53rd Session, 1984
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The plea "based on the item in the defendant's possession at the time of the original proceedings [...] is admissible. But the item must be of a kind which warrants review of the judgment". The document was drawn up after the internal proceedings to serve as the basis for a settlement. "Both the complainant and the Tribunal were aware of the offer of settlement, which was all that mattered at the time. The failure to disclose the item does not warrant any derogation from the rule that judgments are final, and the application must fail."

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal maintains that "unless there is clear evidence, which there is not in this case, of a mistaken approach to the problem," the opinion of the competent body in the organization must be accepted. "That is the ratio decidendi, and the Tribunal [...] deliberately refrained from making findings on the evidence. [...] To allow the complainant's plea would be to countenance objections to the Tribunal's reasoning, and such objections do not constitute an admissible plea."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 446

    Keywords:

    application for review; failure to admit evidence;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "An application for review is an exceptional procedure and is admissible only in strictly defined circumstances, for example where specific facts have been disregarded or so-called 'new' facts discovered. [...] Although such omission enables the Tribunal to review its decision, it will not necessarily do so. As it has said many times, it will review a judgment only in quite exceptional circumstances".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 446

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "As [the Tribunal] has said many times, it will review a judgment only in quite exceptional circumstances: not only are the admissible pleas for review severely limited but what is required is the finding of an exceptional fact, such as an oversight or some fortuitous circumstance, warranting derogation from the general rule of res judicata in Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OFTHE STATUTE
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 446

    Keywords:

    application for review; exception; res judicata;



  • Judgment 609


    52nd Session, 1984
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 1, 2 and 4

    Extract:

    "By [its] judgment, the Tribunal ordered the organization to pay to the complainant $40,000 as 'compensation for the unlawful termination of his contract' and also $6,000 as costs." The organization paid that sum to the complainant in execution of the said judgment. The complainant seeks reimbursement for any taxes he might have to pay on the sum. "No obscurity in the judgment is alleged or identified. [...] The argument does not attempt to bring the case within the very limited grounds on which the tribunal permits reconsideration or review." The complaint is dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 523

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; application for review; execution of judgment; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; material damages; refund; tax;



  • Judgment 604


    52nd Session, 1984
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant invites the Tribunal to correct the material error in Judgments nos. 404, 442 and 536. The Tribunal recalls that a complainant may not submit the same pleas for review more than once. It first seeks to determine whether Judgment no. 536 suffers from any defects which would cause it to be set aside and which could then require the other judgments to be reconsidered. The Tribunal finds that Judgment no. 536 does not overlook the complainant's claims, contrary to her allegations, and is therefore not admissible for review. The complainant's criticism of the Tribunal's appraisal of the claims and certain facts in the case serves no purpose and is not an admissible ground for review.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442, 536

    Keywords:

    application for review; material error; res judicata;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The judgment "gave a comprehensive answer to the complainant's claims. [...] In the circumstances that was an adequate answer. Since [...] an application for review is an exceptional procedure and a derogation from res judicata, a comprehensive answer is quite proper: the Tribunal need not answer every single argument once it has taken the view that the application is irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442, 536

    Keywords:

    application for review; omission to rule on a plea;



  • Judgment 593


    51st Session, 1983
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal will not allow review on the grounds of an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts."

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court provide for review of the Tribunal's judgments. Although an application for review may nevertheless be entertained, only certain pleas will be admitted. In particular, an alleged mistake of law affords no grounds for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata."

    Keywords:

    application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law; no provision;



  • Judgment 590


    51st Session, 1983
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "By a letter [...] the complainant wrote to regret that his case had been incorrectly ruled by the Tribunal and to assert that the dismissal of his complaint was not justified. Treating this letter as an application for further review, the Tribunal finds no grounds therein for any further review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 547

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 579


    51st Session, 1983
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "According to its case law ,the Tribunal will not allow review on the grounds of an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts; nor is failure to admit evidence a valid reason for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 531

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The grounds upon which the complainant seeks review, viz. the error of his being placed by the Selection Committee in [a particular category], the failure of the Selection Committee to screen his case properly and the refusal of the Tribunal to summon witnesses whom the complainant did not call at the hearing by the [Internal Appeal Board], are not grounds for review."

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts; oral proceedings; refusal; tribunal;



  • Judgment 578


    51st Session, 1983
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks review on the grounds of an omission to take account of particular facts, which is entirely without merit. "the complainant merely repeats arguments which he had put forward in his original complaint."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 529

    Keywords:

    application for review;



  • Judgment 570


    51st Session, 1983
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The organisation pleads [...] that the Tribunal omitted to take account of material facts. In support of such a plea, the organisation should [1] particularise each fact that was ignored; [2] identify the passages in the dossier which show that the organisation was relying upon the fact; [3] demonstrate from the terms of the judgment submitted for review that the Tribunal could not have reached the conclusion it did if it had taken the fact into account."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    application for review; condition;

    Summary

    Extract:

    The organisation applied for review of Judgments 507 and 508. The application was dismissed for failing to show the existence of exceptional circumstances needed to justify it. The application for review was dismissed. Each respondent is awarded costs.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    application filed by the organisation; application for review; costs;

    Consideration 8(1)

    Extract:

    "A review is normally confined to the facts in the dossier of the case whose judgment is being submitted for review. It is useless for the applicant to refer to facts outside the dossier unless he introduces them specially as new facts and justifies their introduction accordingly."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    application for review; purport;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The power of review may be exercised in cases of "an omission to take account of particular facts; a material error involving no exercise of judgment and therefore distinguishable from misappraisal of fact which does not warrant review; an omission to pass judgment on a claim; and the discovery of a so-called 'new' fact [...] an error within these categories constitutes a basis for the exercise of the power to review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review;

    Consideration 8(3)

    Extract:

    "It is useless to present an application which in substance is inviting the Tribunal to have second thoughts. If it can have second thoughts, it can also have third and fourth thoughts and there can be no finality. To displace the principle of finality, the applicant must show the exceptional case in which insistence upon it would be unjust."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    application for review; exception; res judicata;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    In the "judgment submitted for review, the Tribunal stated that the effect of certain decisions of the [National Supreme Court] was 'summed up [...] in terms which the organisation does not dispute'. The organisation, while not denying that it failed to challenge the summary, wishes now to dispute it and to put in evidence the opinions of experts who take the contrary view. This is not permissible."

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 8(3)

    Extract:

    "To displace the principle of finality, the applicant must show the exceptional case in which insistence upon it would be unjust. Such is the case of a 'new' fact which the applicant could not reasonably be expected to have discovered in time. Such also is the case of a 'slip' where, as it is sometimes put, 'even homer nods'. Such cases are likely to be very rare and it is likely also that they can be presented without any elaborate argument."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 507, 508

    Keywords:

    application for review; exception; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; material error; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings;



  • Judgment 555


    50th Session, 1983
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The mistake of law, to his mind, turns on failure to comply with an ILO circular [...] The plea is not admissible. To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's legal reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata. Even supposing that the Tribunal did not give due weight to the complainant's argument, the plea must fail."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 534

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of law;

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "Only a few pleas may be allowed in support of an application for review. They include an omission to take account of particular facts; a material error involving no exercise of judgment and thereby distinguishable from misappraisal of fact, which does not warrant review; an omission to pass judgment on a claim; and the discovery of a so-called 'new' fact, i.e. one which the applicant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 534

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review;



  • Judgment 554


    50th Session, 1983
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The Tribunal stated in Judgment No. 486 that "the question for its decision was whether it was within its competence to enforce a rule of policy or practice. The Tribunal found that there was such a rule, but that since it conflicted with a staff rule, it did not create an obligation which the Tribunal was competent to enforce. [...] It is manifest from the judgment that the rule of policy or practice, by whatever evidence its existence was proved, was in this case unenforceable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 486

    Keywords:

    applicable law; application for review; difference; evidence; practice; precedence of rules; provision; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 536


    49th Session, 1982
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant contends that Judgment 442 overlooked one of her claims raised in the additional claims for relief in her third complaint. "The plea fails. The Tribunal gave a brief but adequate reply in paragraph 10 of its judgment when it said that it had no reason to alter its decision".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; omission to rule on a claim;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant once again applied for review of Judgment No. 404 and Judgment No. 442 [which concerned the review of Judgment No. 404]. "Review is an exceptional procedure [...] The complainant may not put forward repeatedly the same pleas in favour of review. In the applications now before the Tribunal her pleas may be only such as she was unable to rely on in the first one or such as the Tribunal may have omitted to hear in Judgment No. 442."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; exception;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Judgment No. 442 [a review of Judgment No. 404] contains no recapitulation of the facts; the procedure followed was the summary one, "and the complaint was not communicated to the [organisation] for reply. There being no exchange of memoranda, no purpose would have been served by summarising the facts and submissions in the complaint since in any event the Tribunal was required to review the whole case in order to answer the complainant's arguments."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; consequence; summary procedure;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The application for the correction of alleged material errors is not admissible. The parties have discussed one of the matters raised in the previous cases; the others, for which there is not a shred of evidence, do not constitute new facts.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442

    Keywords:

    application for review;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "One of [the complainant's] arguments is that the Tribunal was not correctly constituted when it delivered Judgment No. 404" and that because of various other defects the judgment is null and void. "This is a plea she might have put forward in the written proceedings in her fourth complaint, which culminated in Judgment No. 442. It is therefore not admissible."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404, 442

    Keywords:

    application for review; challenge of member; composition of the internal appeals body; inadmissible grounds for review; tribunal;



  • Judgment 510


    49th Session, 1982
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Although there is no provision in the Tribunal's Statute or Rules of court for an application for the review of its judgments, such an application may be made. It will, however, be receivable only if certain conditions are fulfilled, and one is that it may not rest on facts on which the applicant might have relied years earlier. To enlarge the scope for review in that way would encourage unsuccessful complainants to make repeated attempts to get the Tribunal to review its judgments, in disregard of the principle of res judicata."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 309

    Keywords:

    application for review; exception; no provision; res judicata;



  • Judgment 504


    48th Session, 1982
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant alleges that there is a material error in the consideration concerning the classification of a post of Judgment no. 325. The plea fails. "In commenting on the grade of the post [...] the Tribunal chose between conflicting views. It made, not just a finding of fact, but an appraisal of evidence on a matter in dispute, and under the case law such appraisal does not afford grounds for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 325

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of facts; misinterpretation of the facts;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    A staff rule "is a rule, not a fact in the legal sense of the term. thus to omit reference to it would [...] be [...] possibly to commit a mistake of law. An allegation of mistake of law does not afford grounds for review."

    Keywords:

    application for review; mistake of law;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The argument concerning the application of a provision "affords no grounds whatever for reviewing the original judgment". The complainant refers to the provision in the memorandum appended to his initial complaint. Thus, far from being in itself a claim for relief, the argument was "merely a plea in support of his claims. Even if the Tribunal did not comment on the argument, it did not disregard a claim for relief. Besides, it stated that there was no need to rely on [the provision]; thus it did not disregard the rule."

    Keywords:

    application for review; enforcement; omission to rule on a plea; provision; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "The complainant accuses the Director-General of complicity and dishonesty. These accusations rest on facts of which he was in any event aware when he made his first application for review and they cannot now constitute an admissible plea for review."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 467


    47th Session, 1982
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant "is now pursuing a claim which [was] dismissed in Judgment No. 395, and his present complaint thus appears to be an application for review of that judgment. He is relying on what he alleges to be a new situation. In fact it is not: the Tribunal was not unaware of it in delivering Judgment No. 395, and indeed referred to it. Nevertheless the complainant's claim [...] was dismissed. There is no reason to grant him now what he was not granted before: the matter is res judicata."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 395

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 443


    46th Session, 1981
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    Inadmissible grounds for review include an alleged mistake of law, an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, a failure to admit evidence and the omission to comment on pleas submitted by the parties.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 325

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant objects that the Tribunal omitted to take account of one line in an item of evidence. He thus objects to the Tribunal's evaluation of evidence, which is not a plea which can afford grounds for review.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 325

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of evidence; inadmissible grounds for review;



  • Judgment 442


    46th Session, 1981
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "As a rule an official's comments on his subordinates do not give them any right to compensation; otherwise supervisors would express only guarded opinions about their subordinates, and that would be harmful to the organisation's efficiency. The most that can be said is that when a supervisor expresses an opinion which he knows to be untrue for a purely malicious purpose he, or the organisation, will be liable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    allowance; application for review; consequence; difference; general principle; injury; liability; mistake of fact; organisation; purpose; right; supervisor; work appraisal;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "There may be either one or two stages in review proceedings. The Tribunal will first determine whether the plea is admissible. If it is not, the Tribunal will dismiss the application without looking further. If it holds any of the pleas to be admissible, it will then reconsider its judgment on the basis of the evidence adduced in the review proceedings. Those are the only circumstances in which the Tribunal will hear the complainant's submissions on the merits."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    application for review; claim; elements; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    In dismissing all the complainant's claims for relief, the Tribunal rejected by implication her claims for compensation for moral prejudice. It did not pass express comment on those claims nor state its reasons for dismissing them. This failure affords a valid ground for review.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; allowance; application for review; claim; grounds; moral injury; omission to rule on a claim; refusal;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's judgments carry the authority of res judicata from the date on which it delivers them. Though subject to review thereafter, they will be reviewed only in exceptional cases. that is the rule under all judicial systems which allow review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    application for review; date; exception; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; res judicata;

    Consideration 8(G)

    Extract:

    An application for review "will fail unless it relies on flaws which may have an effect on the Tribunal's decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    application for review; condition; consequence; flaw; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Receivable grounds for review include the following: a fact overlooked, material error, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of a new fact. The Tribunal has not had to declare in what cases such pleas will in general be allowed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; disregard of essential fact; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; omission to rule on a claim; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 2 and 8(B)

    Extract:

    Among inadmissible grounds for review is alleged mistaken appraisal of the facts, i.e. the interpretation which the Tribunal has put on the facts. Parties who are dissatisfied with a decision may not question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of facts; definition; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; misinterpretation of the facts; res judicata;

    Considerations 3 and 13

    Extract:

    The discovery of a new fact, "i.e. a fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings" is admissible. Such a fact must not be one which, had the complainant taken due care, might have been cited in the original complaint.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court provide for review of the Tribunal's judgments. Is it to be inferred that review is thereby precluded or simply left for the Tribunal itself to determine ? The Tribunal "has heard several applications for review, but has dismissed them simply by finding that there were no grounds for review. It has not yet discussed in full the scope for review of its judgments." In the present case the problem will be dealt with in part by citing the pleas which are not receivable and reserving judgment on the others.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; no provision;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    By contending that the Tribunal did not order an expert medical inquiry, the complainant objects that a particular means of obtaining evidence was not used. But the failure to admit evidence is not a valid reason for review.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    application for review; expert inquiry; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's legal reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; request by a party; res judicata;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Inadmissible grounds for review include an alleged mistake of law, an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, a failure to admit evidence and the omission to comment on pleas submitted by the parties.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    application for review; appraisal of evidence; appraisal of facts; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;

    Consideration 13(A)

    Extract:

    "A staff member may properly allege unfair treatment where general rules are not applied in the same way to all the staff members to which they are applicable, but he may not do so by comparing circumstances created by particular measures, such as agreements for the reappointment of particular officials. Such agreements will differ because the circumstances of each case differ, and there is no inequality of treatment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 404

    Keywords:

    application for review; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; individual decision; official; provision; reinstatement; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 400


    43rd Session, 1980
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court permit an application for review of a judgment of the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal may therefore declare such an application receivable only in quite exceptional circumstances, for example when new facts of decisive importance have come to light since the date of the judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 325

    Keywords:

    application for review; exception; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; no provision;



  • Judgment 350


    41st Session, 1978
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "Neither the Statute nor the Rules of court permit an application for review of a judgment of the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal may therefore declare such an application receivable only in quite exceptional circumstances, for example when new facts of decisive importance have come to light since the date of the judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 325

    Keywords:

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

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


 
Last updated: 15.07.2021 ^ top