|
|
 |
|
|
Inadmissible grounds for review (13, 9, 11, 17, 567, 757,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Inadmissible grounds for review
Total judgments found: 62
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 5201
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a review of Judgment 4986.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; inadmissible grounds for review; summary procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
“There is indeed nothing to suggest, in reading these conclusions, that the Tribunal did not take into account certain facts or evidence presented by the complainant in his rejoinder during the original proceedings, as he maintains in his application for review. In any event, the complainant’s plea is tantamount to arguing that the Tribunal made an incorrect assessment of facts. As such, it does not constitute an admissible ground for review […].”
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 5143
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant submits that, in Judgment 4670, the Tribunal failed to take account of a fact said to be “material”.
Considerations 3 and 6
Extract:
«Ainsi que le Tribunal l’a souligné à maintes reprises (voir, notamment, les jugements 5059, au considérant 2, 4956, au considérant 2, 4906, au considérant 4, et 4440, au considérant 2), ses jugements sont, conformément à l’article VI de son Statut, «définitifs et sans appel» et ont l’autorité de la chose jugée. Ils ne peuvent donc faire l’objet d’une révision que dans des cas exceptionnels et pour des motifs strictement limités. En vertu de l’article 6, paragraphe 5, du Règlement du Tribunal, les seuls motifs susceptibles d’être admis à ce titre sont l’omission de tenir compte de faits déterminés, une erreur matérielle (à savoir une fausse constatation de fait n’impliquant pas de jugement de valeur), l’omission de statuer sur une conclusion ou la découverte de faits nouveaux que le requérant n’était pas en mesure d’invoquer dans la procédure d’origine. De plus, ces motifs doivent être tels qu’ils aient été de nature à exercer une influence sur le sort de la cause. En revanche, l’erreur de droit, l’omission d’administrer une preuve, la fausse appréciation des faits ou l’omission de statuer sur un moyen ne sont pas des motifs de révision (voir également les jugements 4327, au considérant 3, 3473, au considérant 3, 3452, au considérant 2, ou 3001, au considérant 2). »
« S’agissant de la prétendue omission de tenir compte du fait «déterminant» […], le Tribunal observe […] que le motif de révision ainsi formulé s’analyse en réalité comme invoquant l’omission de statuer sur un moyen. Or, […] une telle omission ne constitue pas un motif de révision admissible.»
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 4327, 4440, 4906, 4956, 5059
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 5116
141st Session, 2026
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant essentially asserts that the Tribunal failed to take account of material facts.
Considerations 2 and 4
Extract:
«Il résulte de la jurisprudence du Tribunal que ses jugements sont, conformément à l’article VI de son Statut, «définitifs et sans appel» et ont l’autorité de la chose jugée. Ils ne peuvent donc faire l’objet d’une révision que dans des cas exceptionnels et pour des motifs strictement limités. En vertu de l’article 6, paragraphe 5, du Règlement du Tribunal, les seuls motifs susceptibles d’être admis à ce titre sont l’omission de tenir compte de faits déterminés, une erreur matérielle (à savoir une fausse constatation de fait n’impliquant pas de jugement de valeur), l’omission de statuer sur une conclusion ou la découverte de faits nouveaux que le requérant n’était pas en mesure d’invoquer dans la procédure d’origine. De plus, ces motifs doivent être tels qu’ils aient été de nature à exercer une influence sur le sort de la cause. En revanche, l’erreur de droit, l’omission d’administrer une preuve, la fausse appréciation des faits ou l’omission de statuer sur un moyen ne sont pas des motifs de révision (voir, par exemple, les jugements 5059, au considérant 2, 4327, au considérant 3, 3473, au considérant 3, 3452, au considérant 2, ou 3001, au considérant 2). […]
[…] Il est clair que ce que conteste l’intéressé à l’appui de ce recours est, en réalité, l’appréciation, prétendument erronée, que le Tribunal aurait faite de ces faits. Or un tel moyen ne peut être utilement présenté, ainsi qu’il a été rappelé au considérant 2 ci-dessus, dans le cadre d’un recours en révision (voir également les jugements 4736, au considérant 6, 4440, au considérant 5, et 3983, au considérant 6).»
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 5094
140th Session, 2025
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4831.
Considerations 2 and 5-6
Extract:
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. Under Article 6, paragraph 5, of the Rules of the Tribunal, the only admissible grounds of review are a failure to take account of material facts, a material error (namely a mistaken finding of fact 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, Judgment 4906, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
[...]
[I]t is plain from [the complainant’s] arguments that [he] is in fact seeking to submit that the Tribunal incorrectly appraised the facts in question. Such submission does not afford an admissible ground for review (see Judgments 4906, consideration 7, 4440, consideration 5, and 3983, consideration 6).
[H]is arguments do not relate to material errors but are solely an attempt to challenge the view taken by the Tribunal in Judgment 4831 and to reopen issues already settled in the original judgment. The legal assessments made by the Tribunal in a judgment cannot be challenged in an application for review (see Judgments 4906, consideration 6, 4440, consideration 4, and 3984, consideration 5). Moreover, insofar as the complainant is essentially revisiting arguments advanced unsuccessfully in his third complaint and expressing disagreement with the Tribunal’s appraisal of the evidence and interpretation of the law, the matters raised are res judicata and the complainant puts forward no legitimate ground to reopen the findings made in Judgment 4831 (see Judgments 4933, consideration 8, 4440, consideration 7, and 3479, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3479, 3983, 3984, 4440, 4831, 4906, 4933
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 5059
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant a formé un recours en révision du jugement 4878.
Considerations 2 and 4-5
Extract:
Il résulte de la jurisprudence du Tribunal que ses jugements sont, conformément à l’article VI de son Statut, «définitifs et sans appel» et ont l’autorité de la chose jugée. Ils ne peuvent donc faire l’objet d’une révision que dans des cas exceptionnels et pour des motifs strictement limités. En vertu de l’article 6, paragraphe 5, du Règlement du Tribunal, les seuls motifs susceptibles d’être admis à ce titre sont l’omission de tenir compte de faits déterminés, une erreur matérielle (à savoir une fausse constatation de fait n’impliquant pas de jugement de valeur), l’omission de statuer sur une conclusion ou la découverte de faits nouveaux que le requérant n’était pas en mesure d’invoquer dans la procédure d’origine. De plus, ces motifs doivent être tels qu’ils aient été de nature à exercer une influence sur le sort de la cause. En revanche, l’erreur de droit, l’omission d’administrer une preuve, la fausse appréciation des faits ou l’omission de statuer sur un moyen ne sont pas des motifs de révision (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4327, au considérant 3, 3473, au considérant 3, 3452, au considérant 2, ou 3001, au considérant 2).
[…]
S’agissant de la prétendue omission de tenir compte de faits déterminés, le requérant fait valoir que le Tribunal ne s’est référé qu’à un seul des documents qu’il avait produits à l’appui de ses écritures et aurait ainsi négligé, selon lui, de tenir compte des autres documents qu’il avait versés au dossier. Mais la circonstance que seule une des pièces fournies par l’intéressé ait été mentionnée dans le jugement faisant l’objet du recours en révision ne signifie nullement que les autres documents produits par celui-ci n’aient pas été pris en considération. Le Tribunal a bien tenu compte, dans son appréciation du bien-fondé du moyen relatif à la différence de traitement alléguée, de l’ensemble des pièces du dossier en rapport avec cette question, même s’il a estimé ne devoir se référer dans le jugement qu’à l’une d’entre elles. Le grief tiré d’une omission de tenir compte de faits déterminés ne saurait donc être accueilli.
S’agissant de la prétendue erreur matérielle, les griefs invoqués ne s’analysent pas comme tenant à l’invocation d’une telle erreur, mais comme visant seulement en réalité à contester l’appréciation des faits que le Tribunal a portée, notamment quant à la valeur probante des documents ci-dessus évoqués, dans le jugement 4878. Or, cette appréciation ne saurait être utilement critiquée dans le cadre d’un recours en révision (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4736, au considérant 6, 4440, au considérant 5, ou 3983, au considérant 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3983, 4327, 4440, 4736, 4878
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 5016
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4912.
Considerations 3, 6 and 7
Extract:
As the Tribunal has already recalled in consideration 4 of Judgment 4906, referring to consideration 2 of Judgment 4440, 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. Under Article 6, paragraph 5, of the Rules of the Tribunal, the only admissible grounds of review are a failure to take account of material facts, a material error (namely a mistaken finding of fact 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 4327, consideration 3, 3473, consideration 3, 3452, consideration 2, and 3001, consideration 2). […]
[T]he Tribunal notes that, in his application for review, the complainant basically disregards the findings it had made in [the] Judgment [which is challenged] […]. It is also quite clear from his submissions that he is trying to revisit some arguments advanced unsuccessfully in his first complaint. But the matters raised are res judicata and the complainant puts forward no legitimate ground to reopen the findings made by the Tribunal in the original judgment (see Judgments 4933, consideration 8, 4440, consideration 7, and 3479, consideration 6).
[…] [A]s to the alleged discovery of new facts, the Tribunal recalls its case law according to which, though the existence of a new fact may indeed afford grounds for review, the fact must date from before the judgment and be such as would have affected the ruling had the Tribunal known of it in time (see Judgments 4906, consideration 8, 4440, consideration 8, 3561, consideration 5, and 1545, consideration 5). In this case, the Tribunal fails to see, in any event, how the factual details provided by the complainant would have led it to decide differently on the claims that were submitted to it in the complaint resulting in [the] Judgment [which is challenged].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1545, 3001, 3452, 3473, 3479, 3561, 4327, 4440, 4906, 4933
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4946
139th Session, 2025
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4857.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Il convient de rappeler que les jugements rendus par le Tribunal sont, conformément à l’article VI de son Statut, «définitifs et sans appel» et ont l’autorité de la chose jugée. Ils ne peuvent par conséquent faire l’objet d’une révision que dans des cas exceptionnels et pour des motifs strictement limités (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4440, au considérant 2, et 3899, au considérant 3). En vertu de l’article 6, paragraphe 5, du Règlement du Tribunal, les seuls motifs susceptibles d’être admis à ce titre sont l’omission de tenir compte de faits déterminés, une erreur matérielle (à savoir une fausse constatation de fait n’impliquant pas de jugement de valeur), l’omission de statuer sur une conclusion ou la découverte de faits nouveaux que le requérant n’était pas en mesure d’invoquer dans la procédure d’origine. De plus, ces motifs doivent être tels qu’ils aient été de nature à exercer une influence sur le sort de la cause. En revanche, l’erreur de droit, l’omission d’administrer une preuve, la fausse appréciation des faits ou l’omission de statuer sur un moyen ne sont pas des motifs de révision (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4906, au considérant 4, 4327, au considérant 3, 3473, au considérant 3, 3452, au considérant 2, et 3001, au considérant 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3899, 4327, 4440, 4906
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4933
139th Session, 2025
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4745.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
As regards the alleged failure to take account of material facts, the Tribunal notes that the complainant is in essence simply alleging that the Tribunal incorrectly appraised the facts in question. Such arguments do not however constitute admissible grounds for review (see Judgments 4736, consideration 6, 4440, consideration 5, and 3983, consideration 6).
To the extent that the application is based on alleged material errors, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s arguments do not relate to material errors but are solely an attempt to challenge the views taken by it in Judgment 4745. The legal assessments made by the Tribunal in a judgment cannot be challenged in an application for review (see Judgments 4736, consideration 7, 4440, consideration 4, and 3984, consideration 5).
The Tribunal concludes that, as the complainant is essentially confining himself to revisiting arguments advanced unsuccessfully in his complaint and expressing disagreement with the Tribunal’s appraisal of the evidence and interpretation of the law, his application for review is in fact a mere attempt to reopen issues already settled in the original judgment (see, for similar cases, Judgments 4736, consideration 11, 4122, consideration 7, and 3897, consideration 4). But the matters raised are res judicata and the complainant puts forward no legitimate ground to reopen the findings made by the Tribunal in the original judgment (see Judgments 4440, consideration 7, and 3479, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3479, 3897, 3983, 3984, 4122, 4440, 4736
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and carry the authority of res judicata. As a result, they may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As indicated in Article 6, paragraph 5, of the Rules of the Tribunal (which reflects the case law), the only admissible grounds 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. Conversely, 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 4908, consideration 4, 4782, consideration 3, 4414, consideration 2, 3897, consideration 3, 3719, consideration 4, 3634, consideration 4, 3473, consideration 3, 3452, consideration 2, and 3001, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3634, 3719, 3897, 4414, 4782, 4908
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4908
138th Session, 2024
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 4674.
Considerations 4-7
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. As indicated in Article 6, paragraph 5, of the Rules of the Tribunal, the only admissible grounds therefor are failure to take account of material facts, a material error (namely, 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 4414, consideration 2, 3897, consideration 3, 3719, consideration 4, 3634, consideration 4, 3473, consideration 3, 3452, consideration 2, and 3001, consideration 2).
On the form that she submitted with her application, the complainant indicates that she seeks a review of Judgment 4674 on two grounds, namely, failure to take account of material facts and omission to rule on a claim. However, her submissions do not support a conclusion that the judgment should be reviewed on either of these grounds.
It is true that in Judgment 4674 the Tribunal did not address the complainant’s pleas disputing, and the pleas of PAHO asserting, that she engaged in all or most of the conduct on which the charges against her were based and this was established beyond reasonable doubt. However, as was clearly stated in consideration 6 of the judgment, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to do so. According to the case law cited above, omission to rule on an argument does not afford grounds for review. This is because the Tribunal would otherwise be required to state its position expressly on all pleas, even if they were plainly of no relevance to the case (see Judgments 4440, consideration 7, 3478, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein).
To the extent that the application is based on an alleged failure to rule on a claim, suffice it to note that in Judgment 4674 the Tribunal dealt specifically with each of the claims for relief formulated by the complainant, even though some were rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3478, 3634, 3719, 3897, 4414, 4440, 4674
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4906
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed applications for review of Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
In support of his applications, the complainant submits that Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732 are flawed by material errors and that the Tribunal failed to take account of material facts. Furthermore, he relies on the discovery of a new fact.
Firstly, in respect of the material errors, the complainant submits that these consist of “incorrect findings of material facts”,“incorrect findings of fact” and “legally invalid and incorrect” findings of fact, which formed the bases for the decisions in Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732. However, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s objections do not relate to material errors but are solely an attempt to challenge the view taken by it in the judgments in question. As it is, the legal assessments made by the Tribunal in a judgment cannot be challenged in an application for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 4, and 3984, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 4440, 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584, 4732
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant next submits that, when it rendered Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732, the Tribunal failed to take account of material facts. However, it is plain from the complainant’s arguments on this point that he is in fact seeking to argue that the Tribunal incorrectly appraised the facts in question. Such an argument does not afford an admissible ground for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 5, and 3983, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3983, 4440, 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584, 4732
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; appraisal of facts; inadmissible grounds for review;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Lastly, the complainant relies on an allegedly new fact. Though the existence of a new fact may indeed afford grounds for review, the fact must date from before the judgment and be such as would have affected the ruling had the Tribunal known of it in time (see Judgments 4440, consideration 8, 3561, consideration 5, and 1545, consideration 5). In this case, the Tribunal fails to see, in any event, how the factual details provided by the complainant would have led it to decide differently on the claims that were submitted to it in the complaints leading to Judgments 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584 and 4732.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1545, 3561, 4440, 4567, 4568, 4569, 4584, 4732
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; new fact;
Judgment 4782
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants filed an application review of Judgment 4484.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Regarding the principles which govern an application for the review of a judgment, the Tribunal case law states 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. 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, Judgment 4736, consideration 4, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4736
Keywords:
grounds; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4736
136th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4571.
Considerations 6 & 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the Tribunal came to the wrong conclusion in considering that the decision which was impugned in her fourth complaint was not a final one challengeable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute. She asserts that the Tribunal relied on wrong legal provisions, made a poor interpretation of the wording of the decision in question, omitted to consider that she had lodged a prior request for review and did not take into consideration IOM’s refusal to follow the procedures established for the internal appeal process.
By those arguments, the complainant is in fact simply alleging that the Tribunal incorrectly appraised the facts in question. Such arguments do not constitute admissible grounds for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 5, and 3983, consideration 6).
[...]
[T]he omission to rule on a plea is not an admissible ground for review [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3983, 4440
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The legal assessments made by the Tribunal in a judgment cannot be challenged in an application for review (see Judgments 4440, consideration 4, and 3984, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984, 4440
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4705
136th Session, 2023
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4274.
Considerations 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15
Extract:
The Tribunal’s consistent precedent has it that, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry res judicata authority. They may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds therefor are a 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 4338, consideration 2, 3897, consideration 3, 3815, consideration 4, 3719, consideration 4, 3452, consideration 2, and 3001, consideration 2).
[...]
It should [...] be noted that the alleged error was not likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case, as required by the aforementioned case law in order to establish a ground for review.
[T]he inadequacy of the reasons given for a judgment is not in any event one of the grounds for review recognised in the case law, an exhaustive list of which has been provided [...].
[T]he complainant is in fact seeking to use this argument to challenge the Tribunal’s interpretation of his written submissions, which cannot be properly challenged in an application for review [...].
[T]he Tribunal made a legal assessment which is plainly not open to challenge in an application for review.
[T]he complainant’s application for review is, for the main part, merely an attempt to re-litigate matters that were conclusively decided by the Tribunal in Judgment 4274 and must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3719, 3815, 3897, 4274, 4338
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4580
135th Session, 2023
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainants criticise the Director for having considered in his decisions of 9 July 2021 that their appeals were irreceivable because they were in his view time-barred. They submit that the decisions involved an error of law on that point.
It is true that this particular reason for rejecting the complainants’ claims – namely, that the disputed increase in contributions was simply part of the ongoing implementation of the aforementioned CIPM decision of 14 December 2016, and the decision in 2018 dismissing the complainants’ appeals against a previous increase in contributions resulting from the same reform was final – is debatable. However, the Tribunal notes that the decisions of 9 July 2021 were also based on the Director’s finding that the complainants’ appeals were unfounded. That second reason for dismissal plainly suffices of itself, and the possible flaw tainting the first reason therefore has no bearing on the lawfulness of those decisions in any event (see, for example, Judgment 4507, consideration 7). The complainants’ plea is therefore irrelevant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4507
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4569
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for review of Judgment 4440.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant simply challenges the legal assessments made by the Tribunal in the two judgments in question, as he has already done in his application for review of Judgment 4370. However, these may not be challenged in an application for review (see Judgment 4440, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4370, 4440
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the Tribunal omitted to rule on three of the claims made in his application for review of Judgment 4370 and on the three claims to which he drew particular attention in his first complaint. However, here the complainant is in fact referring to pleas that he entered in his submissions and not to claims. [A]n omission to rule on a plea does not, in any event, constitute a receivable ground for review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4370
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; omission to rule on a plea;
Judgment 4442
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4329.
Consideration 3
Extract:
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. 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 Judgment 3899, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3899
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Judgment 4440
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4370.
Consideration 2
Extract:
Le Tribunal a déclaré ce qui suit, par exemple dans les jugements 3815, au considérant 4, et 3899, au considérant 3:
«[L]es jugements [du Tribunal] sont, conformément à l’article VI de son Statut, “définitifs et sans appel” et ont l’autorité de la chose jugée. Ils ne peuvent donc faire l’objet d’une révision que dans des cas exceptionnels et pour des motifs strictement limités. Ainsi que l’ont notamment rappelé les jugements 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158 et 2736, les seuls motifs susceptibles d’être admis à ce titre sont l’omission de tenir compte de faits déterminés, l’erreur matérielle n’impliquant pas un jugement de valeur, l’omission de statuer sur une conclusion ou la découverte de faits nouveaux que le requérant n’était pas en mesure d’invoquer à temps dans la première procédure. De plus, ces motifs doivent être tels qu’ils aient été de nature à exercer une influence sur le sort de la cause. En revanche, l’erreur de droit, l’omission d’administrer une preuve, la fausse appréciation des faits ou l’omission de statuer sur un moyen ne sont pas des motifs de révision. (Voir, par exemple, les jugements 3001, au considérant 2, 3452, au considérant 2, et 3473, au considérant 3.)»
(Voir aussi le jugement 4327, au considérant 3.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3815, 3899, 4327
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[L]es appréciations d’ordre juridique que le Tribunal porte dans un jugement ne sauraient être utilement critiquées dans le cadre d’un recours en révision (voir le jugement 3984, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3984
Keywords:
inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 4436
132nd Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4221.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Pursuant to Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal, judgments shall be final and without appeal but the Tribunal may nevertheless consider applications for review. Consistent precedent has it that a judgment of the Tribunal may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The rationale for this was stated, for example, in Judgment 3899, consideration 3, which reiterates the terms of Judgment 3815, consideration 4, as follows:
“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 Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3815, 3899
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
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 4327
130th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant applies for review of Judgment 4172.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4199, consideration 2, its judgments may be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The rationale for this was stated, for example, in Judgments 3815, consideration 4, and 3899, consideration 3, as follows:
“[P]ursuant 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 Judgment(s): 3001, 3452, 3473, 3815, 3899, 4199
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The arguments relied on by the complainant in his application for review, and the evidence which he presents to support them, merely invite the Tribunal to reconsider its findings on these issues on the grounds that it has, in effect, misinterpreted the facts and/or misapplied the law. Although the complainant attempts to base its application for review on the alleged Tribunal’s failure to take into account material facts, his submissions essentially seek to call into question the Tribunal’s exercise of judgement in assessing the evidence. The grounds for review advanced by the complainant are simply an attempt to re-litigate matters that have already been decided. As noted above, such pleas afford no grounds for review.
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; failure to take account of material facts; inadmissible grounds for review;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
