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

Time-limit for filing an application for review (744,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Time-limit for filing an application for review
Total judgments found: 3

  • Judgment 3982


    126th Session, 2018
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 96.

    Considerations 3-4

    Extract:

    Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that “[j]udgments shall be final and without appeal. The Tribunal may nevertheless consider applications for [...] review of a judgment.” Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal’s judgments may be reviewed only in exceptional cases and on strictly limited grounds which must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see, for example, Judgments 3001, under 2, 3452, under 2, 3473, under 3, 3634, under 4, and 3721, under 2). Moreover, the case law requires that an application for review be filed within a reasonable time in fairness to both parties (see Judgments 788, 2219, under 2, and 2693, under 4).
    In this case, on 30 November 2017 the complainant filed an application for review of a judgment delivered on 11 October 1966, in other words more than 51 years earlier. The Tribunal considers that the interval between these two dates constitutes an unreasonable period of time which cannot be justified by reliance on the recent amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal. Indeed, this amendment has no bearing on that period, since the Tribunal had already recognised the possibility of filing an application for review long before this was expressly provided for in its Statute (see Judgment 442, defining the theoretical bases for such an application). Indeed, the Tribunal considered that its judicial role necessarily required it to entertain such applications in order fully to dispose of the cases brought to it (see Judgment 3003, under 28).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 2219, 2693, 3001, 3003, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3721

    Keywords:

    application for review; time-limit for filing an application for review;



  • Judgment 2219


    95th Session, 2003
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The [organisation] contends that the application for review is irreceivable on the grounds that it was submitted more than five months after the judgment was delivered. According to the [organisation], this does not constitute a "reasonable" time within the meaning of the case law referred to in Judgment 1952. The Tribunal on occasion has ruled on applications for review filed more than six months after the impugned judgment was delivered, and even though it is aware of the need to avoid going back on legal situations arising from its decisions, it may consider an application to be receivable when it is submitted nearly six months after a judgment has been delivered, as in the present case. If vital evidence were to come to light, for instance, a judgment could be reviewed even after a greater period of time has elapsed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952

    Keywords:

    application for review; case law; reasonable time; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;



  • Judgment 1952


    89th Session, 2000
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3-4

    Extract:

    "Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal's judgments are final and without appeal and that they carry the authority of res judicata. It is only in quite exceptional circumstances that an application for review, although not provided for in the Statute, can be allowed: the only grounds which may be entertained are failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new facts which the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the proceedings which led to the judgment which the complainant is seeking to reverse. The application for review should also be filed within a reasonable time and the pleas put forward should be of such a nature as to affect the original ruling. [...] In the present case, the Tribunal finds that none of the grounds exist for challenging the ruling already made[: the] application for review was only filed more than one year after the adoption of the judgment that she is challenging [...] The complainant now merely calls into question the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. [A] form, which she says constitutes a new fact, had already been sent to her counsel [...] during the internal appeals procedure. [Finally, the plea] that she was not assisted effectively by her former counsel [...] does not warrant review of the Tribunal's judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1727

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; counsel; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; omission to rule on a claim; reasonable time; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;


 
Last updated: 28.11.2022 ^ top