Time limit (108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 433, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 781,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Time limit
Total judgments found: 335
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant submits that the time limits prescribed by [...] Communiqué [2/17] for submitting comments on the opinion issued by the chairman of the Board and for lodging an objection to the performance evaluation report are unreasonably short, that is ten days in each case, the Tribunal considers that, while the periods are indeed brief, they are not so to a degree that would breach the principles of the right to effective appeal and the right to due process.
Keywords:
performance report; rating; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 4781
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 11, 4662, consideration 11, 4408, consideration 4, and 2598, consideration 6). Accordingly, that official must have the opportunity, insofar as is compatible with the rules of receivability and procedure to which she or he is subject, to freely develop the arguments in support of her or his appeal.
[...]
A provision that gives an appeal body the ability to waive the time limits that normally apply confers on that body discretionary power to be used according to the circumstances of each case. However, in the event of a dispute on the matter, it is for the Tribunal to ensure that the appeal body has not exercised that power improperly (see, for example, Judgment 3267, considerations 3 and 4).
In the present case, the Tribunal considers that, given the very particular situation in which the complainant found herself at the material time, the Appeal Board was indeed presented with exceptional circumstances within the meaning of the aforementioned subparagraph (d), which warranted permission being given to the complainant to finalise her appeal outside the time limit, and that the Board was therefore acting improperly in refusing to give her that opportunity, attempting to justify this position by a reference to “normal practice and procedures”, from which it should therefore have departed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598, 3267, 4408, 4662, 4697
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; exception; internal appeal; right to be heard; time limit;
Judgment 4779
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal for misconduct.
Considerations 4 & 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues, first, that the time limit within which [...] an investigation must normally be carried out was exceeded.
[...]
However, neither the time limit within which the investigation should normally be completed, nor the requirement to state the reasons why that time limit has been exceeded, is intended to have the effect of invalidating the investigation report in the event of a breach. However regrettable they may be, the anomalies in question are therefore not such as to render unlawful the sanction imposed at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the findings contained in that report.
[...]
[T]he fact that the prescribed time limit within which the disciplinary chamber must in principle deliver its advice was exceeded does not have the effect of invalidating that advice, and therefore – as with the failure to comply with the time limit applicable to investigations, discussed above – it has no bearing on the lawfulness of the sanction imposed at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; inquiry; time limit;
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he complainant complains that the impugned decision was not notified to him until a little over two weeks after the expiry of the 45-day time limit prescribed in ITU’s Staff Rule 11.1.4.
But the Tribunal has recalled that time limits of this kind are not intended to have the effect of nullifying a decision taken after their expiry. Their non-observance does therefore not render such decisions unlawful and, in applicable cases, only entitles the staff member concerned to compensation if it causes injury to her or him (see Judgment 4584, consideration 4). Since the submissions do not indicate how this delay caused any injury to the complainant, the Tribunal considers that the plea is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4584
Keywords:
delay; time limit;
Judgment 4741
137th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal already recalled in Judgment 1734, consideration 3, with regard to Staff Rule VI 1.02, the very provision on which this dispute turns, emphasising the following:
“VI 1.02 is quite plain. An internal appeal being ruled out, [the complainant] should have thought of filing a complaint against non-renewal. If he could not understand the article on his own, he was free to get advice.”
It follows that, under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, since the complainant did not file her complaint within 90 days of the Organisation’s decision not to renew or extend her fixed-term contract, it is also irreceivable from that standpoint. The Tribunal has recalled on many occasions that, “[w]ith respect to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal’s case law requires strict adherence to the ninety-day time limit on the grounds that time limits are an objective matter of fact and that strict adherence is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions” (see Judgments 4354, consideration 7, 3947, consideration 5, and 3559, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 3559, 3947, 4354
Keywords:
interpretation; interpretation of rules; non-renewal of contract; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 4720
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is at least arguable that a right to challenge a general decision through a challenge to an individual decision implementing it is not an open-ended and enduring right. The right to challenge the individual decision is subject to ordinary time limits. Accordingly, so is, arguably, the right to challenge the general decision (see Judgment 3614). But as this point was not raised in the pleas, the Tribunal will not address it in detail with a view to considering, ex officio, the receivability of this complaint on this basis.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3614
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; time limit;
Judgment 4709
136th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to recognise her illness as attributable to official duty.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he complainant claims damages for the length and complexity of the procedures conducted in respect of her compensation claim [...].
However, the Tribunal notes that the complainant has already been awarded compensation of 2,500 Swiss francs for the length of the first procedure in the decision of 19 July 2019 and that the second procedure was conducted within a period of some four months, which cannot be regarded as inordinate in view of the time required for the Committee to undertake a rigorous and thorough examination of the case. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant has not established that she has suffered under this head an injury warranting additional compensation [...].
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4700
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges measures reorganising his working time.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s claim for an award of 8,000 euros for the delay in dealing with his internal complaint, the Tribunal notes that this internal complaint was lodged on 16 April 2018 and that the impugned decision is dated 6 June 2019. This period of almost 14 months far exceeds the period laid down by Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, which stipulates that the Director General is to provide his reasoned decision within four months. This therefore constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its own rules and the Tribunal considers the delay to be unreasonable in the circumstances.
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgment 4635, consideration 8). Although the length of the delay in the present case is significant, the adverse effects of that delay on the complainant are minimal in the circumstances. The Tribunal considers that the injury suffered will be fairly redressed by awarding him 1,000 euros in compensation under this head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4635
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4694
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision confirming his fitness for work and instructing him to resume his duties.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]n relation to the unreasonable delay in dealing with his internal complaint, to which the complainant refers in his rejoinder, given that the internal complaint was dated 10 July 2018, the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes was dated 29 March 2019 and the Organisation’s express decision rejecting the internal complaint was dated 9 May 2019, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to award the complainant any compensation under this head. Even though it is true that the period that elapsed between the date on which the internal complaint was lodged and the date of the express decision rejecting that complaint exceeded the period provided for in Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, the Tribunal considers that the delay in question cannot be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. What is more, the complainant has adduced no evidence of any injury that could result from this delay.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4684
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification exercise for her post and seeks compensation in this regard.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that these successive delays in updating the complainant’s job description are indeed unreasonable and that the Organization thereby breached its duty of care and its duty to exercise diligence with regard to these other failings. The effect was to unduly prolong the updating exercise over a period of almost eight years and inevitably caused the complainant moral injury, which may be fairly redressed by awarding her compensation in the amount of 3,000 euros.
Keywords:
duty of care; time limit;
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;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Neither could Judgment 3907 be regarded as a new fact justifying an exception to the time limits for filing a complaint. The Tribunal’s case law states that, since time limits are an objective matter of fact, any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. In particular, the fact that a complainant may have discovered a new fact showing that the impugned decision is unlawful only after the expiry of the time limit for submitting an appeal is not in principle a reason to deem her or his complaint receivable. It is true that, notwithstanding these rules, the Tribunal’s case law allows an employee, concerned by an administrative decision which has become final, to ask the Administration for review, either when some new and previously unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or when the employee is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which she or he was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken. However, the fact that, after the expiry of the time limit for appealing against a decision, the Tribunal has rendered a judgment on the lawfulness of a similar decision in another case, does not come within the scope of these exceptions (see Judgment 3002, considerations 13 and 14). Only under very special circumstances, did the Tribunal accept that the delivery of one of its judgments could be described as a new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance, within the meaning of the above-cited case law and could therefore have the effect of reopening the time limit within which a complainant could lodge an appeal (see Judgment 676).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 676, 3002, 3907
Keywords:
new fact; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law holds that time limits serve the purpose of, among other things, creating finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. An organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that a decision which is not challenged within the prescribed time limits is fully and legally effective when the applicable time limit for challenging that decision before the competent internal appeal bodies has passed (see Judgments 4374, considerations 7 and 8, 3940, consideration 2, 3755, consideration 3, 3439, consideration 4, and 2933, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2933, 3439, 3755, 3940, 4374
Keywords:
time limit;
Judgment 4676
136th Session, 2023
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges EMBL’s refusal to guarantee that the survivor’s pension to which his wife will be entitled at the time of his death will be at least 35 per cent of his last salary; to award him a children’s allowance for each of his wife’s three children from her previous marriages; and to verify that his current pension was properly calculated.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal has often stated that time limits are binding and an objective matter of fact, and that it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, since any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations that is the very justification for a time bar (see Judgment 3482, consideration 4). And pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, a complaint before the latter shall not be receivable unless the person concerned has exhausted the means of redress that are open to her or him under the applicable staff regulations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3482
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; time limit;
Judgment 4673
136th Session, 2023
The Pacific Community
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment during her extended probation period.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant cannot validly claim that, in the circumstances of the case, she was misled by the Organisation with regard to exercising her right of appeal. Although the Tribunal’s case law recognises that there are some exceptions to the general principle that the time limits set for internal appeal procedures must be strictly observed where an organisation has misled a staff member, depriving her or him of the possibility of exercising a right of appeal in violation of the principle of good faith (see [...] Judgment 4184, consideration 4), those exceptions are not applicable in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4184
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; time limit;
Judgment 4664
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that the recognition that there was an unreasonable delay does not in itself render the decision taken at the end of the procedure unlawful (see, for example, Judgments 4584, consideration 4, 4408, considerations 5 and 6, or 2885, consideration 14).
As regards the injury that may have been caused to the staff member by that delay, the Tribunal takes into account two considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the staff member concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4493, consideration 6, 4229, consideration 5, and 4031, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2885, 4031, 4229, 4408, 4493, 4584
Keywords:
internal procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4663
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to acknowledge the harassment that she alleges she suffered and to provide her with the full inquiry report drawn up following her internal complaint against a colleague.
Consideration 19
Extract:
It is settled case law that staff members are entitled to have their internal appeals examined with the necessary speed, having regard in particular to the nature of the decision that they wish to challenge (see, for example, Judgments 4457, consideration 29, 4037, consideration 15, or 3160, consideration 16). Moreover, the Tribunal has repeatedly pointed out that the duty of care requires organisations to deal with harassment cases as quickly and efficiently as possible (see, for example, Judgment 4243, consideration 24).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4037, 4243, 4457
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; harassment; time limit;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the complainant lodged his internal appeal on 20 August 2018, a period of 18 months had passed when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal on 27 February 2020. Such a delay must be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances, since the appeal in question concerned the disciplinary sanction of summary dismissal without indemnities, that is a decision with serious repercussions for the complainant, and the case therefore merited priority treatment by its very nature. This is particularly true given that in this case the Secretary General departed from the recommendation of the Joint Disciplinary Committee in choosing a more severe sanction and, if only for this reason, the complainant’s appeal could not be considered prima facie as devoid of any substance. Furthermore, although the Organization submits that the delay in examining the complainant’s appeal can be explained in part by the difficulties faced by the Joint Appeals Committee in operating owing to lockdown measures during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Tribunal notes that this justification cannot apply to the period prior to 27 February 2020, since the measures referred to were not implemented by the Organization until March 2020.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; disciplinary procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4655
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions rejecting their requests for redefinition of their employment relationships.
Consideration 21
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that international civil servants are entitled to expect that their cases will be considered by internal appeal bodies within a reasonable timeframe and that failure to comply with this requirement of expeditious proceedings constitutes a failing on the part of the employer organisation (see, for example, Judgment 3510, consideration 24, or Judgment 2116, consideration 11). Under the Tribunal’s case law, the amount of compensation that may be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, or 3160, consideration 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 4100, 4178, 4635
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4654
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his employment contract.
Consideration 24
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the amount of compensation that may be granted for a failure to comply with the requirement to deal with an internal appeal in a reasonable time ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, and 3160, consideration 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4100, 4178, 4635
Keywords:
time limit;
Judgment 4609
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the new decision taken by UNESCO pursuant to Judgment 3936 in the context of her appeal against the decision to transfer her to Paris.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law shows that an organisation that is intending to transfer a staff member is obliged to ensure that the implementation of that measure is preceded by proper notice enabling the staff member to make the necessary arrangements for the change in her or his duty station (see [...] Judgment 1556, consideration 12, Judgment 1496, considerations 11 and 13, and [...] Judgment 810, consideration 7). In the present case, the period of 11 days given to the complainant under the decision of 18 February 2013 to take up her new post at Headquarters clearly fell short of that requirement, particularly given that in practical terms the transfer in question involved moving from Kinshasa to Paris.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1496, 1556
Keywords:
duty station; notification; time limit; transfer;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant is right in contending that the unlawfulness of the impugned decision caused her moral injury. The lack of advance information provided to the complainant about the content of the new duties she was to assume and the unduly short period of time she was given to take up her new post in Paris were such as to cause her stress and anxiety and adversely affected her rights and her dignity, which is characteristic of that form of injury.
Keywords:
duty to inform; moral injury; notification; post description; time limit; transfer;
Judgment 4594
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of a competition in which she took part.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant complains about what she regards as the excessively long delay in dealing with her internal complaint. While the period of nine months between the submission of the internal complaint that was the subject of the impugned decision and the date on which that decision was delivered undeniably exceeds the period laid down in Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulation by five months, and therefore constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its own rules, the Tribunal considers that the duration of the procedure cannot be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, even though that duration breached the applicable provisions, the complainant has not adduced any specific evidence of injury arising from the delay.
Keywords:
delay; time limit;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
|
