Res judicata (94, 95, 96, 97,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Res judicata
Total judgments found: 159
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 5183
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for the consequences of her occupational disease.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensation; complaint dismissed; occupational illness; res judicata;
Consideration 4
Extract:
“The Tribunal recalls that, according to its consistent precedent, the principle of res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding only where the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case (see, for example, Judgments 4501, consideration 3, 4183, consideration 8, 3950, consideration 6, 3867, consideration 9, and 3248, consideration 3). The complainant’s claims in the present case are based on the EPO’s alleged gross negligence and/or intentional harm causing her invalidity. It is a separate legal basis of tort liability, distinct from the no-fault liability regime for work-related illnesses. However, some issues have already been dealt with in Judgments 2557 and 2935, delivered respectively on 12 July 2006 and 8 July 2010, concerning the complainant’s first and second complaints. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the complaint is not barred by res judicata in certain respects.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2557, 2935, 3248, 3867, 3950, 4183, 4501
Keywords:
res judicata;
Judgment 5133
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests IOM’s decision to maintain its earlier decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of discharge from service after due notice and to pay her 50 per cent of the termination indemnity in execution of Judgment 4460.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant alleges that IOM breached its duty of care by failing to defer her reassignment to Sudan despite her daughter’s special needs and by attaching little importance to its commitment to empower and retain a long-serving female staff member, reflecting a hostile working environment. She also alleges that the ongoing pattern of institutional harassment influenced the decision to dismiss her. The issue of duty of care and related claims for remedies regarding IOM’s failure to consider her family situation and its refusal to defer her assignment to Sudan have already been adjudicated in Judgment 4459. Moreover, the complainant’s allegations relating to harassment were the subject of her third complaint, which was dismissed by the Tribunal in Judgment 4746, delivered on 31 January 2024. Consequently, the complainant is precluded from relitigating these matters under the doctrine of res judicata.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4459, 4746
Keywords:
res judicata;
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 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.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal concludes that, as the complainant is essentially confining herself in revisiting arguments advanced unsuccessfully in her fourth complaint and expressing disagreement with the Tribunal’s appraisal of the evidence and interpretation of the law, her application for review is in fact a mere attempt to reopen issues already settled in the original judgment (see, for similar cases, Judgments 4122, consideration 7, and 3897, consideration 4). The matters raised are res judicata and she 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, 4122, 4440
Keywords:
application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4722
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s administrative status, which is the focus of his objection, is res judicata since it has been the subject of a number of internal appeals and complaints he has filed with the Tribunal, some of which have resulted in judgments (see Judgments 4642 and 4640).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4640, 4642
Keywords:
res judicata;
Judgment 4717
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s administrative status, which is the focus of his objection, is res judicata since it has been the subject of a number of internal appeals and complaints he has filed with the Tribunal, some of which have resulted in judgments (see Judgments 4642 and 4640).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4640, 4642
Keywords:
res judicata;
Judgment 4682
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for post reclassification.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant cannot benefit from Judgment 3907 by relying on the principles of res judicata or stare decisis in order to elude the time limit for challenging the classification of his post. It must be recalled that Judgment 3907 set aside individual decisions based on Information Circular ICC/INF/2014/011 entitled “Principles and Procedures Applicable to Decisions Arising from the ReVision Project”. It held that pursuant to Presidential Directive ICC/PRESD/G/2003/001 of 9 December 2003, the Principles and Procedures should have been promulgated by an Administrative Instruction or, arguably, by a Presidential Directive. “As the promulgation of the Principles and Procedures by Information Circular was in violation of the Presidential Directive, they were without legal foundation and are, therefore, unlawful as are the decisions taken pursuant to the Principles and Procedures. It follows that the decisions to abolish the complainant’s position and to terminate the complainant’s appointment were also unlawful and will be set aside” (see Judgment 3907, consideration 26). Although the reference to the unlawfulness of “the decisions taken pursuant to the Principles and Procedures” may appear to be made in general terms, Judgment 3907 only concerns the decisions impugned in that case by the complainant who was party to that judgment, and it does not apply to third parties. Judgment 3907 has no res judicata authority in the present case, as the force and effect of res judicata can only be attributed to a judgment rendered between the same parties on the same subject matter, and this is not the case here. It is entrenched in the Tribunal’s case law that there is no exception to the general rule of res judicata, not even when a decision is of “general” application. 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 (see Judgment 2220, consideration 5). Judgment 3907 has no effect on previously adopted individual decisions which were not impugned in due time (see Judgment 3357, considerations 13 and 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2220, 3357, 3907
Keywords:
res judicata; time limit;
Judgment 4525
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of his request to be awarded monetary compensation for the material and moral injury he allegedly sustained as a consequence of the IAEA’s failure to investigate allegations of harassment made against him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 4501
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment beyond its expiry date while she was on sick leave.
Consideration 3
Extract:
It is well established by the case law that the principle of res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding only where 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, 3248, consideration 3, 3867, consideration 9, 3950, consideration 6, and 4183, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 2993, 3248, 3867, 3950, 4183
Keywords:
res judicata;
Judgment 4498
134th Session, 2022
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his claim concerning a surviving spouse’s pension.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that Judgment 3876 has no “res judicata” authority in the present case, since the force and effect of “res judicata” can only be attributed to a judgment rendered between the same parties, and this is not the case here. The applicable approach is stare decisis.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876
Keywords:
precedent; res judicata; stare decisis;
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;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
