|
|
 |
|
|
Same parties (96,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Same parties
Total judgments found: 12
Judgment 3058
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is well established that the same question cannot be the subject of more than one proceeding between the same parties. Accordingly, to the extent that these complaints raise the very same issue raised in the proceedings in respect of which the Tribunal has issued Judgment 3056, that aspect of the present complaints must be struck out."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3056
Keywords:
finality of judgment; identical claims; identical facts; parallel proceedings; res judicata; same parties;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is a fundamental principle that a person cannot, in separate proceedings, challenge a judgment to which he was a party by raising issues that could have been raised in the earlier proceedings."
Keywords:
finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 2993
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Setting up of a pension fund to replace existing pension scheme and introduction of implementing measures.
"[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)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 1263, 2316
Keywords:
binding character; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Judgment 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."
Keywords:
binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;
Judgment 2168
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
"Except for some minor and irrelevant matters of detail, and differences in the manner and form, but not the substance of the arguments presented, the case of the present complainants is almost identical to that which was decided by the tribunal in Judgment 2142 [...] all issues, both procedural and substantive, were definitively dealt with by the tribunal in that case [...] while that judgment is not technically res judicata, for there is no identity of the parties, it constitutes authoritative case law which the Tribunal will follow."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2142
Keywords:
case law; consequence; decision; difference; exception; finality of judgment; formal requirements; grounds; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 1980
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5 and 10
Extract:
"The complainants contend that Judgment 1663 was not properly executed. According to a general principle, a judgment ordinarily affects only the parties to the suit and applies only to the issues raised in it. The Tribunal has applied that principle in judgments concerning monetary claims by staff members of organisations (see Judgment 1935, [...] under 4 to 6). The complainants were not parties to the proceedings that led to Judgment 1663 and so are not entitled to benefit from it unless they can invoke some special ground."
The complainants were unable to do so. Therefore the Tribunal found that, "having no locus standi to apply for the execution of Judgment 1663, the complainants cannot plead that the execution of the judgment was formally flawed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1663, 1935
Keywords:
execution of judgment; flaw; formal flaw; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties;
Judgment 1979
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Consistent precedent holds that, since judgments carry the authority of res judicata only for the parties to a dispute (see Judgment 1935 [...]), complainants may not put forward claims for the whole staff, but only for themselves. The complaints are irreceivable insofar as they address the position of persons who are not parties to this suit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1935
Keywords:
binding character; case law; claim; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 1423
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"By his pointless repetition of arguments on claims which the Tribunal has rejected in previous complaints, the complainant has refused to accept that the decisions of the Tribunal are res judicata. His conduct in reverting to issues which the Tribunal has already ruled on amounts to an abuse of process."
Keywords:
identical claims; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same parties; same purpose; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1263
75th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The res judicata rule will apply where the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case."
Keywords:
definition; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Judgment 1216
74th Session, 1993
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"There are three conditions for sustaining [irreceivability under the res judicata rule]: the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action must be the same as in the earlier case."
Keywords:
case law; definition; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Judgment 879
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
"The res judicata rule applies to an intervener because by the very act of intervening he espouses the complainant's case. It is true that there are some arguments which he puts forward again and which those judgments did not address. But that does not mean that the conditions [...] for applying the res judicata rule are not met: between this case and the earlier ones there is identity in the parties, in the purpose of the suit and in the cause of action."
Keywords:
consequence; effect; intervention; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Judgment 860
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"Intervening in a complaint that was already pending, [the complainant in the present case] threw in his lot with Mr [S.]'s and espoused the case as it stood at the date of his application. He did become a party to that case and so for him Judgment 657 does carry the authority of res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 657
Keywords:
consequence; effect; intervention; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 574
51st Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The condition that the parties should be the same is met here: "Although Mr. [H.] was not a complainant in the case in which the Tribunal gave judgment [...] He was an intervener, the Tribunal declared the intervention receivable, and it dismissed the applications to intervene together with the complaints. Mr. [H.] was therefore party to those proceedings."
Keywords:
effect; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Where a plea of res judicata "is upheld the effect is to preclude a further ruling on claims identical in substance to claims on which the Tribunal has already passed judgment. Where the earlier complaint was dismissed the doctrine of res judicata will apply if three conditions are fulfilled": that the parties must be the same, that the substance of the claim should be the same and that the cause of action should be the same.
Keywords:
condition; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
|
|
|
|
|
