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 4142
128th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions not to directly appoint them to posts which became vacant during the two-year period following the termination of their appointments deriving from the abolition of their posts.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complaints are unfounded having regard to Judgments 3930 and 3928. As a consequence of the res judicata authority of Judgment 3930, the decisions to abolish Ms N.’s post and terminate her permanent appointment do not exist ex tunc. Accordingly, Ms N.’s second complaint, based on those two decisions (and their relevant consequences) which do not legally exist, is unfounded. As the primary claims fail, the subsidiary requests also fail and her complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3928, 3930
Keywords:
res judicata;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; res judicata;
Judgment 4130
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3970.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that, pursuant to Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal, the latter’s judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry the authority of res judicata. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. As stated 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 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 3001, consideration 2, 3452, consideration 2, and 3473, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4129
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3893.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are “final and without appeal” and carry 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 on which the author of the application 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, under 2, 3452, under 2, and 3473, under 3).
The amendment of Article VI of the Statute of the Tribunal introduced in 2016 in order to recognise the parties’ right to file an application for review has no bearing on the grounds on which such applications may be admitted according to the case law cited above.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3001, 3452, 3473
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4128
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the EPO who was dismissed for misconduct, requests the payment of his full salary from July 2017 onwards.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 4127
127th Session, 2019
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3994.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, its judgments, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and carry the authority of res judicata. 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 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 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 3305, under 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3305
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4124
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 3998.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, “pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, its judgments are ‘final and without appeal’ and carry 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 on which the author of the application 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 Judgment 3984, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1178, 1507, 2059, 2158, 2736, 3984
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4122
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for review of Judgment 4016.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, its judgments, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and carry the authority of res judicata. 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 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 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 3305, under 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3305
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; inadmissible grounds for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4097
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to end her participation in the reassignment process and to terminate her fixed-term appointment further to the abolition of her post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
One of the orders made by the Tribunal was that “[a]ll other claims are dismissed”. This order reflected a final determination by the Tribunal, in WHO’s favour, of the complainant’s challenge to the abolition of her post. The complainant is bound by that final determination and cannot challenge it in subsequent proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3248, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3248
Keywords:
res judicata;
Consideration 3
Extract:
WHO argues that in the resolution of the complainant’s first complaint in Judgment 3920 the Tribunal effectively dealt with a number of the issues she seeks to raise in her second complaint in these proceedings and the principle of res judicata operates to prevent her from doing so. This is correct. In consideration 3 of that earlier judgment the Tribunal identified what matters the HBA had viewed as receivable and were accepted by the Director-General as receivable in her decision of 23 December 2014, which was the decision impugned in those proceedings. In consideration 4 of the same judgment the Tribunal made it clear that those receivable matters were the subject matter of the complaint the Tribunal was then determining in Judgment 3920. They included the complainant’s challenge to the abolition of her post involving several arguments. One was that the abolition of her post was not driven by organizational needs and another was that it was based on personal prejudice.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3920
Keywords:
res judicata;
Judgment 4093
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3689.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s judgments, which, under Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and which, furthermore, have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, consideration 12, and 3152, consideration 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, consideration 6, and 3635, consideration 4). The parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments (see, for example, Judgments 2684, consideration 6, and 3823, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3823
Keywords:
application for execution; good faith; res judicata;
Judgment 4092
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to order WHO to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Judgment 3871 and, in particular, to reinstate him with all legal consequences.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It should be recalled that the Tribunal’s judgments, which according to Article VI of its Statute are “final and without appeal” and which have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, consideration 12, and 3152, consideration 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, consideration 6, and 3635, consideration 4). The parties must work together in good faith to execute the judgment (see, for example, Judgments 2684, consideration 6, and 3823, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3823
Keywords:
application for execution; good faith; res judicata;
Judgment 4086
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[I]nasmuch as the complainant was awarded moral damages in Judgment 4084 for essentially the same breach, moral damages will not be awarded for this claim in the present complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4084
Keywords:
moral injury; res judicata;
Judgment 4085
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her harassment grievance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[S]ome of the allegations in the present complaint have also been foundational subjects of Judgments by the Tribunal and are now res judicata (see, for example, Judgment 3950, under 6 and 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3950
Keywords:
res judicata;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The matter summarized in item (4) in consideration 8 of this judgment is res judicata and will therefore not be reconsidered in this judgment as it was substantially the subject of the complainant’s first complaint to the Tribunal, which was determined in Judgment 3418.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3418
Keywords:
res judicata;
Judgment 4079
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]t 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:
application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4078
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3929 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]t 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:
application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4077
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]t 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:
application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 4076
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed and application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3927 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[I]t 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:
application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 3950
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In relation to the principle of res judicata, the case law of the Tribunal presently provides, as exemplified by Judgment 3867, consideration 9, that “the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action must be the same as in the earlier case for the principle of res judicata to apply (see, for example, Judgments 1216, under 3, 2993, under 6, or 3248, under 3)”. Whether this now states, too narrowly, the applicable principle or principles involving estoppel, such as “issue estoppel” or abuse of process, and would preclude a complainant re-agitating substantially the same issues based on substantially the same evidence is a matter to be resolved in other proceedings in due course and not in the present proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 2993, 3248, 3867
Keywords:
estoppel; res judicata;
Judgment 3867
124th Session, 2017
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the WTO’s decision not to conduct an inquiry into his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action must be the same as in the earlier case for the principle of res judicata to apply (see, for example, Judgments 1216, under 3, 2993, under 6, or 3248, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 2993, 3268
Keywords:
res judicata;
Judgment 3823
124th Session, 2017
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3225.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under Article VI, paragraph 1, second and third sentences, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal’s judgments are final and without appeal, but it may consider applications for interpretation, execution or review of those judgments. As the case law has consistently stated (since Judgment 82, under 6), the Tribunal’s judgments are therefore immediately operative, a principle also stemming from their res judicata authority. International organisations that have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action is required by a judgment, which must be executed as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 1887, under 8, 3003, under 12, 3152, under 11, and 3394, under 9). Furthermore, the parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments. Execution must occur within a reasonable period of time, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, especially the nature and the extent of the action which the organisation is required to take (see, for example, Judgments 2684, under 6, 3066, under 6, and 3656, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 1887, 2684, 3003, 3066, 3152, 3394, 3656
Keywords:
execution of judgment; good faith; moral injury; res judicata;
Judgment 3822
124th Session, 2017
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3507.
Consideration 9
Extract:
It should be recalled that the Tribunal’s judgments, which according to Article VI of its Statute are “final and without appeal” and which have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, under 12, and 3152, under 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, under 6, and 3635, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635
Keywords:
execution of judgment; res judicata;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
