Mistake of law (567,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Mistake of law
Total judgments found: 43
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 1353
77th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
See Judgments 442 and 1309.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1309
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1309
76th Session, 1994
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgments 442 and 704, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 704
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application filed by the organisation; application for review; case law; exception; general principle; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; organisation; res judicata;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The defendant Organization is seeking review of a judgment on the grounds that the Tribunal's interpretation of one of UNESCO's rules overlooked well-established practice. The Tribunal interpreted that provision as it saw fit. "What the Organization is seeking is review on the grounds of an alleged mistake of law, and that is not an admissible plea for review."
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; practice;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In sum, according to the principles that the Tribunal consistently abides by in ruling on [applications for review], UNESCO's allegations do not amount to admissible pleas for review [...] The Tribunal therefore summarily dismisses the Organization's application as being clearly irreceivable within the meaning of Article 8(3) of the rules of court."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 8(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; summary procedure;
Judgment 1294
75th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has often said, only in exceptional circumstances will it entertain an application for review. There are several pleas in favour of review that it will not admit. They are an alleged mistake of law, an alleged mistake in the appraisal of the facts, failure to admit evidence and absence of comment on the parties' pleas. "Other pleas in favour of review may be admitted if they are such as to affect the Tribunal's decision. They include an omission to take account of essential facts; a material error...; an omission to rule on a claim; and the emergence of a so-called 'new' fact, i.e. a fact that the complainant discovered too late to be able to cite in the original proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"To accuse the Tribunal of misconstruing a provision of the [FAO] Manual is to charge it with a mistake of law. The plea is not an admissible one in an application for review."
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 1178
73rd Session, 1992
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's rulings carry the authority of res judicata. An application for review will succeed only in exceptional cases and several pleas in favour of review will not be entertained at all. They include an alleged mistake of law [...] other pleas in favour of review may be entertained if they are such as to affect the ruling. they include an omission to take account of particular facts".
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; mistake of law; res judicata;
Consideration 6
Extract:
What [the complainant] is alleging [...] is disregard, not of facts, but of legal provisions. To misread [the Staff Regulations and the Convention] would amount to a mistake of law, and that does not afford admissible grounds for review.
Keywords:
mistake of law;
Judgment 1174
73rd Session, 1992
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"What [the complainant] is alleging is a mistake of law, and that does not afford admissible grounds for review. If it did, a party who was dissatisfied with a ruling might go on challenging it in defiance of the res judicata rule."
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1165
73rd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has time and again affirmed, its judgments have the force of res judicata and may not ordinarily be challenged. Only in exceptional cases will they be subject to review, on the grounds of failure to take account of essential facts, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the discovery of an essential fact the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1036
69th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7, Summary
Extract:
The complainant argues that material errors "misled the Tribunal". In Judgment 917 the Tribunal held that she had no right in law to a professional category post. She contends that FAO Rules provide for making good the lack of a university degree with proper experience and that she did qualify in law for such a post. But that is an alleged mistake of law, and not of fact; as such it does not constitute admissible grounds for review.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 917
Keywords:
application for review; material error; mistake of law;
Judgment 980
66th Session, 1989
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant is in fact asking the Tribunal to change its mind about its interpretation of the rules. The reasons he puts forward are essentially that its judgment showed misappraisal of the facts and a mistake in law in interpreting the rules and failed to endorse his own interpretation. Those are not admissible grounds for review."
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; inadmissible grounds for review; interpretation; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law;
Judgment 979
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant's application "merely alleges misinterpretation of the EPO's Service Regulations and guidelines. That is an assertion of error of law which, according to the long-established case-law, does not constitute valid grounds for review".
Keywords:
application for review; interpretation; mistake of law;
Judgment 948
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The purpose of the present application is to get the Tribunal to change its mind by seeking to refute its reasoning and show the case law it cited to be irrelevant. What he is alleging is a mistake of law, and that does not constitute admissible grounds for review."
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 898
64th Session, 1988
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The claims are irreceivable because "they are a pointless attempt to get review of decisions that the Tribunal ruled on in Judgments 732 and 733. [...] [The complainant is] pleading misinterpretation of the text, and that would be a mistake of law, which is not an admissible reason for reviewing a text that carries the authority of res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 732, 733
Keywords:
application for review; interpretation; mistake of law; res judicata; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 749
59th Session, 1986
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
To allow review on the grounds that the Tribunal's legal reasoning was mistaken would be to encourage the dissatisfied party to go on challenging the judgment indefinitely in disregard of the res judicata rule. The Tribunal so held in Judgment 681, in which it declined to consider criticisms of its original reasoning: the complainant's plea was a mistake of law and it was inadmissible.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 681
Keywords:
mistake of law;
Judgment 748
59th Session, 1986
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Whether reinstatement is inadvisable is an issue of law. A mistake of law does not constitute admissible grounds for review, and the Tribunal's decision on the point, even if it was wrong, is not subject to review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 665
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law; reinstatement;
Judgment 708
57th Session, 1985
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The applicant states correctly that "the Tribunal has specifically ruled mistake of law an inadmissible ground for review". He argues, in the words which the Tribunal used in Judgment 570, that "the principle of finality ... does not go so far as to require that errors arising from accident or inadvertence or the like can never be corrected". It is unlikely that a mistake of law would arise through accident or inadvertence. In any case in which it does arise the Tribunal will consider which principle should prevail. In the present case the applicant does not identify any statement of law in Judgment 636 which could conceivably be said to have been made through accident or inadvertence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 570, 636
Keywords:
mistake of law;
Judgment 658
55th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The construction which the Tribunal put on [the provision] is an issue of law. An appraisal of the facts which is based on legal reasoning does not afford grounds for review. In any event the Tribunal's reasoning on the issue did not afford the basis for its decision to dismiss the complaint, as indeed is clear from the inclusion of the words 'en outre' in the authentic text."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 617
Keywords:
application for review; interpretation; mistake of law;
Judgment 649
55th Session, 1985
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"What [the Organisation] is really saying is that the Tribunal misapplied the rules, and an allegation of a mistake of law does not constitute admissible grounds for review since it is an attack on the principle of res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 564, 565, 614
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 593
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court provide for review of the Tribunal's judgments. Although an application for review may nevertheless be entertained, only certain pleas will be admitted. In particular, an alleged mistake of law affords no grounds for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata."
Keywords:
application for review; exception; inadmissible grounds for review; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law; no provision;
Judgment 555
50th Session, 1983
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The mistake of law, to his mind, turns on failure to comply with an ILO circular [...] The plea is not admissible. To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's legal reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata. Even supposing that the Tribunal did not give due weight to the complainant's argument, the plea must fail."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 534
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 504
48th Session, 1982
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
A staff rule "is a rule, not a fact in the legal sense of the term. thus to omit reference to it would [...] be [...] possibly to commit a mistake of law. An allegation of mistake of law does not afford grounds for review."
Keywords:
application for review; mistake of law;
Judgment 442
46th Session, 1981
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments carry the authority of res judicata from the date on which it delivers them. Though subject to review thereafter, they will be reviewed only in exceptional cases. that is the rule under all judicial systems which allow review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; date; exception; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; res judicata;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"To allow an application for review on the grounds of the Tribunal's legal reasoning would be to permit anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision to question it indefinitely in disregard of the principle of res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of law; request by a party; res judicata;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Inadmissible grounds for review include an alleged mistake of law, an alleged mistake in appraisal of the facts, a failure to admit evidence and the omission to comment on pleas submitted by the parties.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of evidence; appraisal of facts; failure to admit evidence; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
