Res judicata (94, 95, 96, 97,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Res judicata
Total judgments found: 154
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 3817
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3623.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3623
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; res judicata;
Judgment 3815
124th Session, 2017
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 3486.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are “final and without appeal” and have 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 which the complainant was unable to rely on 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, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 3792
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3045.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that pursuant to Article VI of its Statute its judgments are “final and without appeal” and that they are therefore “immediately operative”, as established early in its case law (see, in particular, Judgment 82, under 6). The Tribunal subsequently noted that the principle that its judgments are immediately operative is also a corollary of their res judicata authority. International organisations that have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see Judgments 553, under 1, 1328, under 12, 1338, under 11, and 3152, under 11). Moreover, “it is well settled that an application for execution may be filed without it being necessary in principle to exhaust internal remedies when the organisation does not execute the judgment, executes it incompletely or tarries unreasonably in its execution” (see Judgments 1771, under 2(b), 1887, under 5, and 2684, under 4). In addition, the Tribunal points out that it is up to the parties to work together in good faith to execute the Tribunal’s judgments so as to ensure that they are executed within a reasonable period of time (see Judgment 2684, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 553, 1328, 1338, 1771, 1887, 2684, 3152
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; res judicata;
Judgment 3731
123rd Session, 2017
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3235.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[W]hat the Tribunal intended was that when a fresh decision was made in relation to the internal appeal, and if that decision was again to dismiss the appeal, all other arguments raised by the complainant in those proceedings (which gave rise to Judgment 3235) and the relief sought in consequence of those arguments could be raised afresh in any future challenge to the new decision dismissing the internal appeal in the Tribunal. It was certainly not the Tribunal’s intention to extinguish such enforceable rights as the complainant may have had in relation to his employment and its termination and the orders made did not have that legal effect.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3235
Keywords:
res judicata;
Judgment 3665
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to reconsider the question of his promotion in 2007.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; res judicata;
Judgment 3547
120th Session, 2015
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the Tribunal's judgments are res judicata, the application for review is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 3511
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the third version of his staff report for 2002-2003.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Given that the complainant does not raise any new arguments which could be seen to vitiate the Tribunal’s decision in Judgment 3249, the Tribunal concludes that this complaint should be dismissed in application of the principle of res judicata. “[T]he principle of ‘[r]es judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard’. The principle applies when the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case (see Judgments 1216, under 3, and 1263, under 4).” (See Judgment 2993, under 6, reiterated in Judgment 3248, under 3.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 1263, 2993, 3248, 3249
Keywords:
res judicata;
Judgment 3506
120th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of some of her requests for the defrayal of medical expenses.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not accept the defendant organisation’s objection that, in view of the withdrawal of the first complaint, the complainant is effectively barred from lodging another complaint raising substantially the same issues. […] It is plain that neither the withdrawal of suit itself nor the res judicata authority of this judgment by which the withdrawal is recorded precludes the filing of the second complaint in question."
Keywords:
res judicata; withdrawal of suit;
Judgment 3470
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the first judgment concerning the complainant cannot be reopened, the complaint is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3091, 3225
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 3469
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the first judgment concerning the complainant cannot be reopened, the complaint is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3090, 3225
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 3394
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal considered that, by taking it upon itself to interpret Judgment 3119, WIPO breached its duty to execute that judgment fully and correctly.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3119
Keywords:
application for execution; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; execution of judgment; organisation's duties; res judicata;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal’s judgments carry the authority of res judicata and must be executed by the parties as ruled. They may not be called into question except when an application for review is allowed. They may form the subject of an application for interpretation by the Tribunal only if one party considers that the ruling is deficient or insufficiently clear (see Judgment 1887, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887
Keywords:
application for interpretation; res judicata;
Judgment 3392
118th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal summarily dismissed the applications for interpretation and for review.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for interpretation; application for review; complaint dismissed; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 3391
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The application for review is summarily dismissed as none of the alleged grounds calls into question the Tribunal’s decision.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 3248
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint being almost identical to the previous one and the complainant having no new argument, the Tribunal considered the complaint to be irreceivable under the principle of res judicata.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance report; res judicata;
Judgment 3244
115th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for review of Judgment 2975 relating to termination of her employment, relying on a new fact.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"As provided in Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are final. Accordingly, they are subject to the application of the principle of res judicata. However, it is well settled that they may be reviewed in exceptional circumstances and on limited grounds (see, for example, Judgments 748, under 3, 1252, under 2, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8, 2270, under 2, and 2693, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1252, 1294, 1504, 2270, 2693
Keywords:
application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 3223
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; procedural flaw; res judicata;
Judgment 3197
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the application for review of Judgment 2946, as there was no new fact giving rise to review.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"[A]s provided in Article VI of the Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are final. Accordingly, they are subject to the application of the principle of res judicata and will only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances and on limited grounds. That is, “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 [earlier] proceedings” (see Judgment 1952, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 3152
114th Session, 2013
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for execution of Judgments 2867 and 3003.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, "according to the provisions of Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal”, and they are therefore “immediately operative”, as its earliest case law established (see, in particular, Judgment 82, under 6). The Tribunal subsequently noted that the principle that its judgments are immediately operative is also a corollary of their res judicata authority [...]. For this reason, international organisations which have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action a judgment may require (see [...] Judgments 553 and 1328, or Judgment 1338, under 11). Lastly, there is no provision in the Statute or the Rules of the Tribunal stipulating that, notwithstanding these principles, the submission of an application for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice under [...] Article XII has the effect of staying the execution of the impugned judgment pending the rendering of that opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Articles VI and XII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 553, 1328, 1338
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; application for execution; competence of tribunal; consequence; decision; declaration of recognition; exception; execution of judgment; finality of judgment; icj; iloat statute; judgment of the tribunal; no provision; organisation's duties; request by a party; res judicata; suspensory effects;
Judgment 3106
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Organization argues that the complainant's internal appel was irreceivable, because the issues raised in it were determined by the Tribunal in its judgment on one of his earlier complaints, and that the present complaint is therefore barred by res judicata.
"As explained in Judgment 2316, under 11: "Res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard." A decision as to the "rights and liabilities of the parties" necessarily involves a judgment on the merits of the case. Where, as here, a complaint is dismissed as irreceivable, there is no judgment on the merits and, thus, no "final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties". Accordingly, the present complaint is not barred by res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2316
Keywords:
internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;
Judgment 3094
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; res judicata;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
