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 3058
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is well established that the same question cannot be the subject of more than one proceeding between the same parties. Accordingly, to the extent that these complaints raise the very same issue raised in the proceedings in respect of which the Tribunal has issued Judgment 3056, that aspect of the present complaints must be struck out."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3056
Keywords:
finality of judgment; identical claims; identical facts; parallel proceedings; res judicata; same parties;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is a fundamental principle that a person cannot, in separate proceedings, challenge a judgment to which he was a party by raising issues that could have been raised in the earlier proceedings."
Keywords:
finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 3046
111th Session, 2011
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The right of an organisation to choose the manner in which it defends proceedings brought against it in the Tribunal / Absolute privilege.
"The doctrine of res judicata is one of the legal concepts that serve to ensure that judicial decisions are final and binding and that litigation is brought to a final conclusion. Another such concept is 'absolute privilege' insofar as it relates to statements made in legal proceedings. [A]bsolute privilege attaches to statements made in, and in the course of, legal proceedings, including statements by the parties, their legal representatives and their witnesses so that, save in the case of perjury or interference with the course of justice, those statements may not be the subject of separate proceedings. Absolute privilege serves another important function. It enables the parties to present their cases fully so that a decision can be reached on the whole of the available evidence."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; binding character; evidence; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; submissions; testimony;
Judgment 3002
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[The principle of] res judicata [applies] only [to] judicial rulings, and not [to] administrative decisions."
Keywords:
decision; definition; enforcement; judgment of the tribunal; limits; res judicata;
Judgment 2993
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Setting up of a pension fund to replace existing pension scheme and introduction of implementing measures.
"[T]he principle of '[r]es judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard'. The principle applies when the parties, the purpose of the suit and the cause of action are the same as in the earlier case (see Judgments 1216, under 3, and 1263, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1216, 1263, 2316
Keywords:
binding character; finality of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose;
Judgment 2980
110th Session, 2011
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Competition considered procedurally flawed because candidates were added to the shortlist after the evaluation process had begun.
"[T]he Tribunal rules on the basis of the specific claims against an administrative decision in a particular complaint, which means that if an alleged flaw is found not to have existed, that is not to say that the administrative decision was lawful and that no flaw exists which could be contested in a new complaint within the established time limits."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; decision; flaw; res judicata; right of appeal;
Judgment 2889
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 and 7
Extract:
"In accordance with the Tribunal's case law, at the stage of execution of a judgment by the parties, and likewise in the context of an application for execution, the judgment has res judicata authority and must be executed as ruled (see, for instance, Judgment 1887, under 8). An exception must, however, be made to this principle when execution proves to be impossible owing to facts of which the Tribunal was unaware when it adopted its judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887
Keywords:
application for execution; date; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2829
107th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 5
Extract:
The complainant filed an appeal with the WIPO Appeal Board challenging the decision to suspend him from duty. The Board held that the appeal was irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule, inasmuch as it had already issued an opinion on the measure of suspension and no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter. The Director General also deemed the appeal irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule.
The Tribunal considers that "[t]he res judicata rule applies to decisions of judicial bodies, but not to opinions or recommendations issued by administrative bodies. The Director General was therefore obviously wrong to cite this rule as the basis for declaring the internal appeal irreceivable on the grounds that the Appeal Board had already given an opinion on the suspension and that no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter."
[...]
"The Organization shall pay the complainant 3,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the moral injury which he suffered owing to the fact that the merits of his internal appeal were not examined."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; allowance; compensation; executive head; general principle; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; res judicata;
Judgment 2826
107th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"There was nothing to preclude the complainant from raising the argument based on the French text of the Staff Regulations in his first complaint. He was then armed with the recommendation and reasons of the Appeal Board, both of which were based on the English text of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. Further, as he was then seeking recognition of his same-sex partner as a dependent spouse, it was for him to advance argument as to why that course should be taken rather than the more limited course recommended by the Appeal Board. Moreover, the grounds on which the Tribunal may review its judgments are limited to «failure to take account of some essential fact, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the later discovery of some essential fact that the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings» (see Judgment 1252 and also Judgments 442, 555 and 649). The argument based on the French text is, in essence, an argument that the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules as barring recognition of the complainant's partner as his dependent spouse. That is not an admissible ground for the review of a judgment (see Judgment 2029). Nor is it a ground for review that, on 3 September 2007 and after Judgment 2643 was delivered, the complainant married his partner in British Columbia in accordance with the law of Canada. It would entirely defeat the principles of finality and res judicata if subsequent facts could be taken into account on an application for review of a judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 555, 649, 1252, 2029, 2643
Keywords:
application for review; dependant; finality of judgment; inadmissible grounds for review; language of rule; marital status; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata; same-sex marriage;
Judgment 2815
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"[The complainant] attempts to raise in this complaint the same issues that were raised in his earlier complaint which led to Judgment 2688. The principle of res judicata must be applied with the consequence that, in accordance with Article 7 of the Tribunal's Rules, the complaint must be summarily dismissed as clearly devoid of merit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 7 of the Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2688
Keywords:
res judicata; summary dismissal;
Judgment 2806
106th Session, 2009
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
In Judgment 2575, the Tribunal annulled a decision to transfer the complainant from Vienna to Berlin. No action was taken to return him to Vienna. Instead, on 13 February 2007, the IOM informed him that he was to be transferred to Berlin with immediate effect. In Judgment 2691, the Tribunal declared that the decision of 13 February 2007 was "null and void ab initio".
"Like all judicial bodies, the Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction and power to take action to ensure that its judgments are implemented. That power may be exercised in any proceedings where a question is raised with respect to the implementation of a judgment. Accordingly, an order will be made for a penalty to be paid in the event that [the complainant] is not posted to Vienna within 30 days."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2575, 2691
Keywords:
application for interpretation; application for review; continuing breach; delay; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; res judicata; time limit;
Judgment 2782
106th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
In order to execute Judgment 2560 the Organisation paid salary arrears not only to the officials who had filed the complaints that led to that judgment, but also to all other members of staff and to all former members of staff in receipt of a retirement pension.
"It is not disputed that only the parties to the proceedings leading to the delivery of Judgment 2560 could seek its enforcement. But this does not mean that that judgment remains without effect for staff members who, although they did not participate in those proceedings, are de facto in a situation identical to that of colleagues who did. It is clear from Judgment 2560 that the Organisation breached the provisions of the Staff Regulations by not taking any measure to adjust salaries and pensions for the period under consideration. Staff members who were not party to the proceedings are entitled, for the same reasons as those stated in the judgment, to receive the salary arrears paid to the staff members who participated in those proceedings, provided that they are in the same situation.
Consequently, in deciding to extend the scope of Judgment 2560 to all serving or retired members of staff, the Organisation [...] perform[ed] a legal obligation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2560
Keywords:
adjustment; breach; complainant; effect; execution of judgment; grounds; limits; organisation's duties; payment; pension; purport; res judicata; retirement; right; salary; same cause of action; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2720
105th Session, 2008
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Of course the ITU, which had fulfilled its obligation to execute Judgment 2540, had every right to circulate comments that were critical of that judicial ruling [...]. In so doing, however, the Union was not entitled [...] to challenge the findings of fact made in that judgment, which had res judicata authority; nor was it entitled, above all, to harm the complainant's honour and reputation by defamatory statements."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2540
Keywords:
execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata; respect for dignity;
Consideration 10
Extract:
Following the delivery of Judgment 2540, a journalist wished to write an article on the case. Concerned to protect itself from the risk that its image might be harmed, the Union sent a letter to the journalist and to the ITU staff, together with a "Summary of Facts", presenting its own version of the case which was highly tendentious. "This fallacious presentation of the facts of the case is all the less acceptable when one considers that the facts in question were the subject of findings by the Tribunal in Judgment 2540. According to the Tribunal's case law, such findings, by virtue of the res judicata rule, are no longer open to challenge and are therefore binding on both parties as true statements of fact (see Judgment 1540, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1540, 2540
Keywords:
res judicata;
Judgment 2693
104th Session, 2008
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments have the authority of res judicata. They will be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on limited grounds. These grounds include the discovery of a new fact. A new fact is a fact on which the party claiming it was unable to rely through no fault of its own; it must be a material fact likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8 and 2270, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 1504, 2270
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; definition; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; limits; misconduct; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 2316
96th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Res judicata operates to bar a subsequent proceeding if the issue submitted for decision in that proceeding has already been the subject of a final and binding decision as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in that regard. It extends to bar proceedings on an issue that must necessarily have been determined in the earlier proceeding even if that precise issue was not then in dispute. In such a case, the question whether res judicata applies will ordinarily be answered by ascertaining whether one or other of the parties seeks to challenge or controvert some aspect of the actual decision reached in the earlier case."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; definition; enforcement; finality of judgment; general principle; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same purpose; settlement out of court; staff member's duties; tribunal;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant wants to be granted her salary increment to step X retroactively. The ITU asserts that the complaint is inadmissible because in Judgment 2170 the Tribunal stated that those pleas were dismissed. "Judgment 2170 was concerned with the complainant's entitlement to her step VIII salary increment, her pleas regarding entitlement to salary increment for step [...] X being dismissed on the basis that they were not and could not be the subject of her first complaint. That being so, there was no final and binding decision on her present claim either expressly or as a necessary step to the decision that she was then entitled to a step VIII increment. Accordingly, the complaint is not barred by res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
absence of final decision; claim; complaint; condition; decision; express decision; general principle; grounds; iloat; increase; increment; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; res judicata; right;
Judgment 2277
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"An application for execution presupposes that the complainant is able to challenge an act or an omission by the organisation that employs him which is subsequent to the judgment concerned and contrary to the terms of the ruling. [T]he complainant [...] merely reiterates pleas and facts which preceded the judgments [of which he seeks execution], which are now res judicata and cannot be challenged."
Keywords:
application for execution; decision; omission; organisation's duties; res judicata;
Judgment 2270
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As is clear from Judgment 442, a Tribunal judgment is res judicata and will only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances including, for example, omission to take account of a fact or the discovery of a 'new' fact. Of course, even in such cases, review will not be granted if the fact in question does not bear on the judgment given. In other words, a fact must be a 'material fact' before the Tribunal will review a judgment on the ground of discovery of a new fact or on the ground that a fact has been overlooked."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; res judicata;
Judgment 2220
95th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant is asking for the execution of a judgment in which he was neither a party nor an intervener. He "claims that [that] judgment constitutes an exception to the general rule of res judicata because it is of "general" application. There is no such exception to the rule. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it. The complainant confuses the rule of res judicata with the rule of stare decisis. The former, which is a rule of law, applies absolutely when the necessary three identities of person, cause and object are present, which is not the case here. the latter rule, which is simply a matter of judicial practice or of comity, holds that, in general, the Tribunal will follow its own precedents and that the latter have authority even as against persons and organisations who were not party thereto, unless it is persuaded such precedents were wrong in law or in fact or that for any other compelling reason they should not be applied."
Keywords:
binding character; case law; complainant; effect; enforcement; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; grounds; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; limits; mistake of fact; organisation; practice; purport; request by a party; res judicata; right; same cause of action; same parties; same purpose; status of complainant;
Judgment 2219
95th Session, 2003
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The [organisation] contends that the application for review is irreceivable on the grounds that it was submitted more than five months after the judgment was delivered. According to the [organisation], this does not constitute a "reasonable" time within the meaning of the case law referred to in Judgment 1952. The Tribunal on occasion has ruled on applications for review filed more than six months after the impugned judgment was delivered, and even though it is aware of the need to avoid going back on legal situations arising from its decisions, it may consider an application to be receivable when it is submitted nearly six months after a judgment has been delivered, as in the present case. If vital evidence were to come to light, for instance, a judgment could be reviewed even after a greater period of time has elapsed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1952
Keywords:
application for review; case law; reasonable time; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;
Judgment 2211
94th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Having made reference to what it declared in Judgment 1884, under 8 and 9, the Tribunal states: "The Tribunal will not, of course, impose costs penalties in every case in which a persistent litigant [...] loses, for some disputes will no doubt be at least arguable. But where, as in the present case, a complainant has actually had success before the Tribunal [...] and nonetheless refuses to accept the limitations which such success imposes, that complainant may expect to have cost consequences. Because this is the first time the Tribunal has had to act against the present complainant, the costs awarded to the organisation will be relatively nominal, but that will not necessarily be the case in the future. The Tribunal will order the complainant to pay the [organisation] the sum of 100 euros in costs. The [organisation] may recover the award by withholding it from any amounts due to the complainant now or in the future."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1884
Keywords:
case law; complaint; costs; counterclaim; res judicata; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2168
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
"Except for some minor and irrelevant matters of detail, and differences in the manner and form, but not the substance of the arguments presented, the case of the present complainants is almost identical to that which was decided by the tribunal in Judgment 2142 [...] all issues, both procedural and substantive, were definitively dealt with by the tribunal in that case [...] while that judgment is not technically res judicata, for there is no identity of the parties, it constitutes authoritative case law which the Tribunal will follow."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2142
Keywords:
case law; consequence; decision; difference; exception; finality of judgment; formal requirements; grounds; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
