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 2062
91st Session, 2001
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10(f)
Extract:
The complainant "may not invoke res judicata for want of a decision by a judicial authority."
Keywords:
definition; res judicata;
Judgment 2058
91st Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [Organization] contends that assessments already given by the Tribunal are not open to challenge and considers that several paragraphs of the complaint should be discounted under the res judicata rule. the plea fails: the decision challenged in the present dispute is not the one addressed in [a previous] judgment [...], so the complainant may rely on all such evidence and testimony as he deems appropriate to support his pleas."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; complaint; decision; evidence; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; testimony;
Judgment 2029
90th Session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considérant 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal will [...] consider whether the Organization's pleas fall within the admissible grounds for review. The FAO submits that in interpreting the rules on the recruitment of professional staff the Tribunal made an error of law which voids Article VIII(3) of the FAO Constitution of all substance and disregards the Director-General's discretionary authority. Such an allegation calls into question the Tribunal's legal reasoning. To allow review of the interpretation of [the] rules [at issue] would render meaningless the principle that the Tribunal's judgments are final and immediately acquire the authority of res judicata. It would also allow its judgments to be questioned systematically by complainants who are dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision."
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1980
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5 and 10
Extract:
"The complainants contend that Judgment 1663 was not properly executed. According to a general principle, a judgment ordinarily affects only the parties to the suit and applies only to the issues raised in it. The Tribunal has applied that principle in judgments concerning monetary claims by staff members of organisations (see Judgment 1935, [...] under 4 to 6). The complainants were not parties to the proceedings that led to Judgment 1663 and so are not entitled to benefit from it unless they can invoke some special ground."
The complainants were unable to do so. Therefore the Tribunal found that, "having no locus standi to apply for the execution of Judgment 1663, the complainants cannot plead that the execution of the judgment was formally flawed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1663, 1935
Keywords:
execution of judgment; flaw; formal flaw; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; same parties;
Judgment 1979
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Consistent precedent holds that, since judgments carry the authority of res judicata only for the parties to a dispute (see Judgment 1935 [...]), complainants may not put forward claims for the whole staff, but only for themselves. The complaints are irreceivable insofar as they address the position of persons who are not parties to this suit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1935
Keywords:
binding character; case law; claim; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 1978
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An application for execution may only address issues covered by the initial judgment, which carries the authority of res judicata (see Judgment 1887 [...] under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887
Keywords:
application for execution; general principle; res judicata; same cause of action;
Judgment 1952
89th Session, 2000
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
"Consistent precedent has it that the Tribunal's judgments are final and without appeal and that they carry the authority of res judicata. It is only in quite exceptional circumstances that an application for review, although not provided for in the Statute, can be allowed: the only grounds which may be entertained are failure to take account of particular facts, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim and the discovery of some new facts which the complainant was unable to invoke in time in the proceedings which led to the judgment which the complainant is seeking to reverse. The application for review should also be filed within a reasonable time and the pleas put forward should be of such a nature as to affect the original ruling. [...] In the present case, the Tribunal finds that none of the grounds exist for challenging the ruling already made[: the] application for review was only filed more than one year after the adoption of the judgment that she is challenging [...] The complainant now merely calls into question the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. [A] form, which she says constitutes a new fact, had already been sent to her counsel [...] during the internal appeals procedure. [Finally, the plea] that she was not assisted effectively by her former counsel [...] does not warrant review of the Tribunal's judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1727
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; counsel; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; omission to rule on a claim; reasonable time; res judicata; time-limit for filing an application for review;
Judgment 1934
88th Session, 2000
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant cannot invoke in his favour res judicata in a case to which he was neither party nor intervener."
Keywords:
complainant; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; locus standi; res judicata;
Judgment 1825
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments are final and binding. They are not subject to appeal. The Tribunal will not entertain applications for revision or review except in the most unusual circumstances such as fraud or the discovery of conclusive new evidence which could not have been brought forward before. The stability of judicial procedures and the need to bring an end to litigation require that parties must accept the result they obtain even when they are unsatisfied with it. Where both parties have had a full opportunity to present their case and where no new and previously undiscoverable factual element is brought forward the principle of res judicata prevents the reopening and rearguing of cases already decided."
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; evidence; finality of judgment; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1824
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. There are two sides to every case and the party who loses will usually believe that the Tribunal committed an error. There must, however, be an end to litigation and the stability of the judicial process requires that final judgments of the kind here at issue be set aside only on limited grounds and for the gravest of reasons."
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; res judicata;
Judgment 1637
83rd Session, 1997
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16(c)
Extract:
The complainant claims an invalidity pension. The Tribunal holds that he is not entitled to one. "Articles 11.1 and 11.2, [of UNIDO's Staff Rules], which deal with total or partial disability attributable to the performance of official duties, do not apply to cases like this one where, after several months' sick leave on full pay, the member does not go back to work and the reason is not that he is unfit but that he has reached the age of retirement and has had to stop work because of a decision no longer subject to challenge."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 11.1 AND 11.2 OF UNIDO'S STAFF RULE
Keywords:
age limit; invalidity; res judicata; retirement; separation from service; service-incurred; sick leave; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1582
82nd Session, 1997
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments - including, of course, remand for a new decision - are binding on both parties and indeed on the Tribunal itself."
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; effect; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata;
Judgment 1545
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has often held, its judgments carry the force of res judicata and are not subject to appeal. Only in exceptional cases may it review them. Application for review is an extraordinary remedy that is not to be mistaken for appeal. Appeal lies only to a court of higher instance that may reconsider the whole case, whereas review, as contemplated in the case law, falls to the Tribunal itself."
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; res judicata;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Though the discovery of a new fact may afford grounds for review, the fact must date from before the material judgment and be such as would have affected the ruling had the Tribunal known of it in time. The facts the complainant alleges are subsequent to [...] the date of [the judgment in question]. They may afford grounds for a new complaint but not for review of that judgment."
Keywords:
application for review; definition; fact subsequent to the judgment; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1529
81st Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"In Judgment 442 [...] and in many later judgments the Tribunal has declared an alleged mistake of law to be an inadmissible plea for review. To allow an application for review on the grounds that the Tribunal's legal reasoning was wrong would be to let anyone who was dissatisfied with a decision question it indefinitely in disregard of the res judicata rule. [...] The application must be summarily dismissed as clearly irreceivable under Article 7 of the Tribunal's Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
application for review; finality of judgment; iloat statute; mistake of law; res judicata; summary procedure;
Judgment 1507
81st Session, 1996
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent the Tribunal will allow an application for review only in exceptional cases. Its judgments are, as Article VI of its Statute says, 'final and without appeal' and carry the authority of res judicata. Admissible grounds for review are strictly limited: failure to take account of a material fact, an error of fact which involves no exercise of judgment, failure to rule on a claim, and the discovery of a new fact which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, the plea must be such as to affect the original ruling: see Judgment 1255 [...] under 2." Inadmissible pleas for review are a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, a wrong appraisal of the facts and failure to rule on pleas: see, for example, Judgment 442 [...], also under 2."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VI OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 1255
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; appraisal of evidence; finality of judgment; iloat statute; inadmissible grounds for review; mistake of law; res judicata;
Judgment 1500
80th Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
In an earlier judgment the Tribunal held a disputed report to be lawful "so the issue is res judicata and not now open to appeal. [The complainant] cannot properly impute 'malice aforethought' to the reporting officer because he cites no fact he could not have relied on in his earlier complaint and which might afford valid grounds for review of [the judgment in question]."
Keywords:
application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 1423
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"By his pointless repetition of arguments on claims which the Tribunal has rejected in previous complaints, the complainant has refused to accept that the decisions of the Tribunal are res judicata. His conduct in reverting to issues which the Tribunal has already ruled on amounts to an abuse of process."
Keywords:
identical claims; judgment of the tribunal; res judicata; same parties; same purpose; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1421
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
See Judgment 442, considerations 2 and 3
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; case law; inadmissible grounds for review; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata;
Judgment 1419
78th Session, 1995
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"Where the Tribunal sets a decision aside the defendant organisation is bound to take any action required to give full effect to the wording and reasoning of the judgment. When the dispute is about financial liability the Tribunal may in the full exercise of its competence either state the amount of which the defendant is liable, if a sufficiently exact figure can be put on it, or else, where execution calls for further calculation or the play of discretion, send the case back to the organisation so that it may act on the rulings in the judgment."
Keywords:
compensation; consequence; discretion; effect; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata;
Judgment 1365
77th Session, 1994
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The organization submits that there was no point in resuming the process of appointment as ordered in Judgment 1272. "But there the organization shows misunderstanding about the effect of a judgment. The quashing of [Mr. X's] appointment [...] being res judicata, it had a duty under the judgment to resume the process from the date of the unlawful appointment, regardless of the new situation arising from the expiry of [Mr. X's] appointment and his assignment to [another] post [...]. The complainants are therefore right in contending that the organization was at fault in refusing to carry out the process properly."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272
Keywords:
application for execution; breach; consequence; execution of judgment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; material damages; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants seek the quashing of a decision in which the WTO refused to resume the appointment process as ordered in Judgment 1272. "Yet any satisfaction that the complainants might derive from resumption of the procedure would be merely formal [so] the Tribunal exercises the option that Article VIII of its Statute allows of not setting aside the [impugned] decisions."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272
Keywords:
application for execution; breach; consequence; damages; execution of judgment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
