ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

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: 307

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >



  • Judgment 398


    43rd Session, 1980
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 2-3

    Extract:

    The Staff Regulations provide for two means of redress: requests and complaints. The "request" in question showed the characteristics of a complaint. The prescribed time limit having obviously expired, the Director declared the complainant's application time-barred. When she filed a further complaint, it was proper for him to uphold his earlier decision.

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 395


    43rd Session, 1980
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    The two decisions of 1974 at issue "were not impugned before the Tribunal within the time limit. They had therefore become final when the complainant challenged them in [...] 1978 and remained in full legal force as long as they were neither amended by the Director-General himself nor invalidated by special circumstances of time or of place."

    Keywords:

    complaint; decision; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 390


    43rd Session, 1980
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The letter was delivered by hand at the complainant's residence, and the complainant does not deny that the letter was accepted at his residence nor offer any explanation as to what could thereafter have happened to it. "The complainant admittedly received this letter; he did not reply to it denying receipt of the memorandum. In these circumstances the Tribunal finds that the complainant was notified of the decision on 13 January and that consequently the complaint was not filed in time."

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of notification; decision; evidence; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 364


    41st Session, 1978
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "Time runs from the latest effective decision. If it has run out from that decision, it does not begin to run again from a later decision which does no more than affirm the earlier one."

    Keywords:

    confirmatory decision; date of notification; decision; new time limit; start of time limit; time limit;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, "a complaint shall not be receivable unless the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him in the applicable staff regulations. This means that where, as here, the Staff Regulations provide for an appeal committee, the person concerned must bring his complaint before that body within the time limits allowed by the regulation. Thus the question for the tribunal is whether the Appeals Board was right in rejecting the complaint on the ground that it was not brought before it in due time."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 349


    40th Session, 1978
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 27

    Extract:

    The organisation was in breach of contract in that it failed to specify and pay the night work indemnity. The complainant is accordingly entitled to be paid the indemnity in full; were it not for a regulation which prescribes that claims relating to the payment of indemnities may not be raised later than six months from the date on which the staff member became entitled to raise such a claim, he would have been entitled to back payments from the time he joined the organisation. But he is thereby barred from claiming more than six months' arrears.

    Keywords:

    allowance; breach; contract; night differential; organisation; payment; time limit;

    Consideration 31

    Extract:

    "Under [the applicable provision] the complainant should have made his claim within six months from the date the injury originated or at latest within six months of the date when its serious consequences became manifest, and this he has failed to do. It is not enough to report the occurrence, as the complainant claims he did to a direct superior or to the organisation's male nurse or medical doctor; there must be a claim for compensation."

    Keywords:

    invalidity; professional accident; receivability of the complaint; service-incurred; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 347


    40th Session, 1978
    International Patent Institute
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The complainant failed to impugn [the] decision within the period of ninety days prescribed in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal and it has therefore become final. Not only is it not now open to challenge but the arguments put forward against it are irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    iloat statute; time limit;



  • Judgment 338


    40th Session, 1978
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    Assuming that the appeals filed by the complainant were receivable, the complainant "should in any event have appealed to the [appeals body] not later than thirty days after [the confirmation of the decision]. He did not appeal to the [appeals body] until [...] after the time limit had expired. The Director-General was therefore right to dismiss the appeal."

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 336


    40th Session, 1978
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    Assuming that the letter in question constitutes a claim requiring a decision, sixty days had elapsed without a decision being taken by the organisation. "But a complainant is not thereby obliged to treat silence as an adverse decision. He may prefer to continue or to resume the correspondence in the hope of obtaining a favourable decision. If he continues or reopens the case in this way, he must wait for another period of sixty days' silence before he can treat his claim as rejected. Since the complainant has not obtained a final decision [...] the complaint is irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 333


    40th Session, 1978
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    The complainant appealed to the Director-General within the time limit for disputed claims. The Director-General dismissed her appeal by a letter which was not merely confirmatory. The complaint impugning that decision was filed within the time limit and is therefore receivable.

    Keywords:

    complaint; confirmatory decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;



  • Judgment 328


    39th Session, 1977
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainants claim benefits dependent on their having non-local status. WHO Staff Rule 280.7 sets a retroactive time limit of one year for such claims. The complainants knew what they were doing at the time of recruitment when they signed a modified appointment form in order to obtain their employment. The organization may have acted reprehensibly, but its conduct amounts neither to concealment nor to bad faith: the organization may therefore rely on the material provision.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 280.7
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 272

    Keywords:

    allowance; consequence; good faith; non-local status; non-retroactivity; organisation; receivability of the complaint; refund; time limit;



  • Judgment 322


    39th Session, 1977
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    For reasons of a personal nature, the complainant waited six years before informing the organisation of the birth of an illegitimate child. He claimed retroactive payment of allowances from the date of the birth. The Tribunal finds that he has lost his right to retroactive payment, since he did not act within a reasonable period of time. To claim a lump-sum payment, after waiting several years, is to disregard the purpose of the provisions on family allowance.

    Keywords:

    dependent child; family allowance; non-retroactivity; purpose; reasonable time; request by a party; time limit;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "It is immaterial that according to [the relevant provision] an official may not waive his right to remuneration. [...] It is through his own delay that he may lose his right to family allowance, and not because of any express or implied waiver on his part."

    Keywords:

    dependent child; family allowance; reasonable time; request by a party; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 307


    38th Session, 1977
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "[T]here is a clear distinction between a contract to appoint and the appointment itself, and it is normal to have an interval between the two so as to allow for the preparation of the formal documents. The payment of salary and the start of the official's duties, including the duty to travel to his place of work, would naturally be contemporaneous and begin on a date to be fixed by the letter of appointment."

    Keywords:

    appointment; contract; date; payment; salary; time limit;



  • Judgment 306


    38th Session, 1977
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The ninety-day time limit expired on 9 May; but since this day was a sunday, the complaint registered by the Registry on 10 May was receivable.

    Keywords:

    complaint; exception; public holiday; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 305


    38th Session, 1977
    International Patent Institute
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "According to Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal a complaint shall not be receivable unless the internal means of redress have been exhausted and the complaint was filed within ninety days after the notification of the impugned decision. Hence only a final decision may prompt a complaint and the period of ninety days runs from the date of notification."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of notification; decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;



  • Judgment 292


    38th Session, 1977
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The article was amended by an office note. "The complainant's request for an interpretation of [the article] is a request for a decision relating to him; it may be made at any time and is not subject to any time limit. [The administration] never gave any decision upon the interpretation of [this] article [...] or upon the relationship to it of the office notices; this [...] is the substantial question in this case."

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; decision; failure to answer claim; interpretation; provision; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 279


    37th Session, 1976
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    According to paragraph 3 of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal, "where the complainant alleges failure to take a decision, or an implied decision to dismiss his appeal, the period of ninety days shall run from the expiration of the sixty days allowed for the taking of the decision by the administration."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; failure to answer claim; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;



  • Judgment 277


    37th Session, 1976
    International Patent Institute
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "It is immaterial that the Appeals Committee may have erred in hearing the appeal. The fact is that it gave its views and consequently the complainant had recourse to the internal means of redress available to him."

    Keywords:

    consequence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; time bar; time limit;

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "Although the Tribunal must determine whether its own time limit for filing a complaint has been respected, it will not review the observance of procedural rules in internal bodies. It merely notes that such bodies have heard the appeal. The most that can be said is that matters would have been different had the Director-General in his final decision expressed reservations on the propriety of the appeals procedure."

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 275


    36th Session, 1976
    International Patent Institute
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "It is not necessary to consider whether the internal time limit was respected since the Appeals Committee decided on the merits."

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 270


    36th Session, 1976
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "In view of the explanations which it contains, and in particular the reference to a circular subsequent to the notification [contested by complainant], the reply [by the organisation] is not a mere confirmation of that notification. In fact it is a new decision which gave rise to a new time limit for appeal."

    Keywords:

    confirmatory decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 259


    35th Session, 1975
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The decision in question, which merely upheld an earlier decision, could "not give rise to new time limits for the lodging of an appeal by the complainant."

    Keywords:

    confirmatory decision; decision; internal appeal; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;

    Considerations

    Extract:

    Under the applicable provision, the complainant had a period of six weeks in which to appeal against the decision which he regarded as detrimental. "No appeal having been lodged within that period, the decision had [...] become final [...] when the complainant asked for review of his case. The Secretary-General and subsequently the Appeal Board therefore acted lawfully in dismissing the request on that ground." No exceptional circumstances warranted a derogation from the prescribed time limits.

    Keywords:

    decision; internal appeal; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.11.2020 ^ top