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

Res judicata (94, 95, 96, 97,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Res judicata
Total judgments found: 147

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

  • Judgment 4438


    132nd Session, 2021
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims compensation for moral harm caused by statements made before the Council of Administration, which he describes as defamatory and calumnious.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; res judicata; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4414


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants filed applications for review of Judgment 4195.

    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:

    admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4387


    131st Session, 2021
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants filed applications for execution of Judgment 4155.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The principle of res judicata operates only on the judicial determination of issues raised in proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 2316, consideration 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2316

    Keywords:

    res judicata;



  • Judgment 4355


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks the review of Judgment 4182.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for review; complaint dismissed; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4331


    131st Session, 2021
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to directly appoint her to posts which became vacant during the two years following the termination of her appointment owing to the abolition of her post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; res judicata; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4330


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the President’s new final decision to reject his appeal, arguing that the whole procedure was unlawful.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; precedent; res judicata; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 4323


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the Tribunal's decision in Judgment 4256 to dismiss his complaints as a result of the withdrawal of the impugned decisions.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4241


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    WHO raises receivability as a threshold issue. It argues that matters which are raised in this case are irreceivable insofar as they are covered by separate proceedings, including the complainant’s first complaint contesting the decision to reassign her as Senior Advisor, SIE, and other proceedings that are being pursued by the complainant independently of the challenge to the impugned decision to close her harassment complaint. However, it is relatively clear that the allegations insofar as they may concern those other matters are intended to establish an aspect of the unlawfulness of the decision to close the harassment complaint and the complainant’s claims are cast no wider. It is open to the complainant to follow this course (see, for example, Judgment 4149, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4149

    Keywords:

    harassment; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4235


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 4093.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    It should [...] be recalled that the Tribunal’s judgments, which, under Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and which, furthermore, have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, consideration 12, and 3152, consideration 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, consideration 6, 3635, consideration 4, and [...] 3822, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3822

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4204


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Appeals Committee to close the case in light of Judgment 3893.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal’s decision in Judgment 3893 is res judicata, the Appeals Committee rightly determined that it could not re-open the case.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3893

    Keywords:

    internal procedure; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4202


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgments 3887 and 3986 and contests the implied rejection of his request for the execution of those judgments.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for execution; complaint dismissed; res judicata; summary procedure;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    In Judgment 3986 delivered in public on 26 June 2018 on the application for execution of Judgment 3887, the Tribunal provided clear explanations as to how Judgment 3887 must be interpreted and executed. These issues cannot be reopened again.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887, 3986

    Keywords:

    res judicata;



  • Judgment 4187


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for interpretation of Judgment 4052.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant’s request for clarification under (a) in consideration 3 [...] is an attempt to relitigate a question which was already decided in Judgment 4052 and which is therefore res judicata.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4052

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4183


    128th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to select him for three positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    The principle of res judicata, relied on by the ICC, serves at least two important purposes. One is to ensure that courts are not called on to determine again causes of action that were resolved in an earlier judgment. There is a clear public benefit in courts being freed from the task of doing so, particularly given the demand on courts both internationally and nationally to resolve disputes expeditiously, often in the face of increasing numbers of cases requiring resolution. The principle is intended to create finality in litigation. Another purpose is to ensure that a party against whom proceedings are brought is not required to defend again, with the attendant cost and inconvenience, a case earlier defended and resolved, irrespective of who was successful in the earlier proceedings. In circumstances where a party is successful in the earlier proceedings and obtains a remedy, no obvious public purpose is served in enabling the litigation of a case that may (though may not) result in the same remedy.

    The Tribunal, in its case law, has identified the principle of res judicata as operating in circumstances where, in later litigation, the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case (see, for example, Judgments 1216, consideration 3, 2993, consideration 6, and 3248, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 2993, 3248

    Keywords:

    res judicata;



  • Judgment 4142


    128th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions not to directly appoint them to posts which became vacant during the two-year period following the termination of their appointments deriving from the abolition of their posts.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; res judicata;



  • 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.

    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.

    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 4128


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the EPO who was dismissed for misconduct, requests the payment of his full salary from July 2017 onwards.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; res judicata; summary procedure;



  • 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 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.

    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 Judgment 3984, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3984

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;



  • 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;

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


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top