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 3116


    113th Session, 2012
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant submitted his complaint by sending a scanned complaint form to the Tribunal via an e-mail of 11 May 2010, with only sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 filled in. One of the essential sections, section 4, had been left blank. He submitted a completed version of the form on 18 May 2010.
    "It should be recalled that Article 6(1)(a) of the Rules of the Tribunal sets out the requirements of form for filing a complaint: the complainant should fill in and sign the complaint form prescribed in the Schedule of those Rules. The complainant’s requests to the Tribunal that he be allowed to correct retroactively the incomplete initial complaint form, sent on 11 May 2010, and consequently that the completed revision of it, sent on 18 May, be accepted as having been filed on 11 May, are denied. Indeed, the entries in the initial complaint form did not suffice to identify the relief the complainant was claiming. Therefore, one of the essential requirements of form set out in Article 6(1) was not met and the complaint could not be registered as filed on 11 May 2010. Moreover, this case does not fall within the purview of the thirty-day time limit prescribed by Article 6(2) of the Rules for correction of complaints. [...] Consequently, the document filed on [11 May 2010] cannot be considered a complaint, as it did not contain the claims which are essential elements of a complaint. The complaint form, properly filled in, was filed on 18 May 2010, i.e. six days after the expiration of the ninety-day time limit. Therefore, the complaint must be considered irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Rules

    Keywords:

    complaint form; correction of complaint; formal requirements; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3112


    113th Session, 2012
    International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant did not sign the offer of appointment within the time limit prescribed by the organisation.
    "As the complainant herself acknowledged, there were still unresolved issues that she wished to have settled before entering into a contract. Accordingly, it cannot be said that at that time there was any contractual relationship between the parties, let alone an employment relationship. As there was no employment relationship, the complainant was not an official of the organisation. It follows that the Tribunal is not competent to hear the complaint and that, therefore, it must be dismissed."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; contract; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; refusal; status of complainant; terms of appointment; time limit;



  • Judgment 3075


    112th Session, 2012
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "An organisation has the duty to follow its own Rules, and to do its best to ensure the proper functioning of its internal appeal system. The application of time limits in the internal appeal procedure is a safeguard for a proper functioning of the system. The internal appeal procedure is indeed an important step in the remedying of disputes given that an appeal body's competence is broader than that of the Tribunal. Therefore, just as staff members have the duty to pursue their appeals with due diligence, an organisation has the duty to respect the time limits and cannot rely on staff members to monitor the procedures. The possibility of filing a complaint directly with the Tribunal is to be considered a further safeguard for a proper functioning of an internal appeal system and not a fast track for settling a dispute between the parties through a judgment from the Tribunal. Indeed, an internal appeal system which is not fully functional affects the right of defence."

    Keywords:

    direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 3070


    112th Session, 2012
    International Office of Epizootics
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed (see Judgment 2414, under 23). Precedent also has it that the procedure used for drawing up a performance appraisal forming the basis of a dismissal decision must always be adversarial (see, in particular, Judgments 2468, under 17, and 2515, under 18)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 2515

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; criteria; date; duty to inform; organisation's duties; purpose; right; termination of employment; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3059


    112th Session, 2012
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "It is fundamental to the law governing the relations between a staff member and an international organisation that adverse decisions, including adverse performance reports, must be challenged in a timely manner and in accordance with the relevant staff rules and regulations. If not, those decisions become final and cannot be reopened."

    Keywords:

    decision; internal appeal; mandatory time limit; performance report; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 3039


    111th Session, 2011
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[A]s the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2064, under 5, performance reports continue to be useful even if deadlines have not been respected, and failure to meet a deadline cannot on its own be a reason for setting aside reports. However, depending on the case, the effect that the delay has on the report's content will be taken into account."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2064

    Keywords:

    breach; condition; consequence; delay; judicial review; performance report; time limit;



  • Judgment 3034


    111th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [The] period for filing a complaint expired on 28 December 2008. However, as that was a Sunday, the complaints of the persons concerned could still be filed on the following day (see Judgments 306, 517 and 2250, under 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 306, 517, 2250

    Keywords:

    late filing; sunday; time limit;



  • Judgment 3002


    111th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 13 to 15

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time [...]. 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 his or her complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgments 602, under 3, 1466, under 5 and 6, or 2821, under 8).
    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 unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or else when the employee is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he/she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken (see Judgments 676, under 1, 2203, under 7, or 2722, under 4). 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.
    In particular, in the instant case, the complainant's argument that the delivery of Judgment 2359 constitutes a new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance, within the meaning of the above-cited case law, is to no avail. In Judgment 676 the Tribunal did accept that the delivery of one of its judgments could be described in these terms and could therefore have the effect of reopening the time limit within which a complainant could lodge an appeal. But the circumstances of the case were very special in that the Tribunal, in previous judgments which it cited in that case, had formulated a rule which had greatly altered the position of certain staff members of an organisation and which, although already applied by the organisation, had until then not been published or communicated to the staff members concerned. No exceptional circumstances of this nature exist in the instant case [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 602, 676, 1466, 2203, 2359, 2722, 2821

    Keywords:

    internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal; late appeal; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; suspension of the execution of a judgment; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2993


    110th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "It may well be that where an organisation conceals the existence of a cause of action, time will run only from such time as the cause of action is discovered."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; organisation; organisation's duties; right of appeal; start of time limit; time limit;



  • Judgment 2975


    110th Session, 2011
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment / Non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment as a result of restructuring.
    "The case law allows that where the Administration has failed to take a decision 'within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it', as provided for by Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, and the staff member has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time and a decision is not received, he or she may proceed directly before the Tribunal without waiting for a final decision (see Judgment 2631, under 3)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2951


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "An appeal against a decision which has recurring effects cannot be time-barred: each month in which the complainant receives her payslip, in accordance with her step-in-grade assignment, must be considered a source of a new cause of action (see Judgment 978, under 8)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 978

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; cause of action; continuing breach; internal appeal; late appeal; pay slip; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2948


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "While Article VII, paragraph 3, of the [Tribunal's] Statute permits a complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal '[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it', the Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of the claim to the advisory appeal body constitutes a 'decision upon [the] claim' within the meaning of these provisions, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see, for example, Judgments 532, 762, 786 or 2681)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; case law; date of notification; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; time limit;



  • Judgment 2907


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law as established in Judgments 752, under 4, and 2821, under 9, for example, exceptions may be made to the applicable time limits when an organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 752, 2821

    Keywords:

    good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2902


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal finds that by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; compensation; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; project personnel; reasonable time; reorganisation; time limit;



  • Judgment 2901


    108th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's case law [...] allow[s] a complaint against an implied rejection to be deemed receivable, notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit for filing a complaint, if a particular step taken by an organisation, such as sending a dilatory reply to the complainant, might give that person good reason to infer that his or her claim is still under consideration (see Judgment 941, under 6)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 941

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; late appeal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2887


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The letter of 19 December 2007 conveyed the Director- General's reasons and his final decision rejecting the complainant's internal appeal. The subsequent letter of 24 January 2008 did not alter that earlier decision and provided no new grounds for it. Accordingly, it did not give rise to new time limits (see Judgment 2011, under 18). As the complaint was not filed within ninety days of the notification of the final decision dated 19 December 2007, as required by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal's Statute, it is irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2011

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Following the adoption by UNESCO of new classification standards, the complainant sought reclassification of her post. The Job Evaluation Committee and a desk audit confirmed that her post was appropriately classified at grade G-6. The Director-General endorsed that grading. The complainant seized the Tribunal but her complaint was dismissed as irreceivable.
    "The complainant's arguments as to the date of the final decision dismissing her internal appeal must be rejected. The letter of 17 October 2007 clearly indicated that the results of the desk audit would be communicated to the complainant together with the final decision. In that context, the letter of 19 December 2007 informing her of those results and of the Director-General's decision that no compensation would be granted and that her post would be maintained at grade G-6 could only be construed as a final decision with respect to her internal appeal. Although it would have been preferable if the letter of 19 December 2007 had expressly stated that it was a final decision and indicated that it could only be challenged by a complaint filed with the Tribunal, the subsequent letter of 24 January 2008 still allowed the complainant sufficient time within which to file a complaint."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 2878


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
    "[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841

    Keywords:

    breach; collective bargaining; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner as the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 21 months, which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability (see Judgment 2841, under 9). Therefore the Tribunal awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2841

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; material damages; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2868


    108th Session, 2010
    South Centre
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 12-13

    Extract:

    "On the issue of receivability, the Centre contends that [...] the complainant was late in filing his appeal with the Board, and that his complaint is therefore not receivable."
    "The Tribunal rejects this objection to receivability. [T]he Chairman of the Board advised the complainant that the Board had decided to grant his request for review of the administrative decisions despite the late filing of the notice of appeal. [T]he Appellate Body accepted the appeal and, as no objection was then taken, it is not open to the Centre to object before the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    delay; internal appeals body; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2866


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4 and 5

    Extract:

    The complainant challenged the Organisation's decision not to grant her the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 72 (1) of the Service Regulations. The Tribunal held that she had failed to adduce cogent evidence that she fulfilled the requirements for the granting of the said allowance.
    "The EPO argues that although it was outside the time contemplated in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations, a decision on the complainant's appeal was taken by the President and the appeal was forwarded to the Internal Appeals Committee prior to the complaint being filed. Accordingly, there was no longer an implicit rejection of the complainant's appeal and Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal's Statute does not apply. In its view, as the Tribunal held in Judgment 533, under 5, the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that the internal means of redress have not been exhausted."
    "The EPO's reliance on Judgment 533 is misplaced. In the present case, by the EPO's own admission the decision was not taken within the time provided in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2562, under 6:
    "The EPO cannot be heard to argue that the complainant has failed to exhaust internal means of redress when the sole reason for his failing to do so was the EPO's own failure to abide by its own Service Regulations and to follow the timelines under Article 109(2). [...]"
    Accordingly, the complaint is receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
    Organization rules reference: Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 533, 2562

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; direct appeal to tribunal; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2863


    108th Session, 2010
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant was notified of the decision he impugns before the Tribunal on 11 March 2008 and filed his complaint against the Eurocontrol Agency on 11 June 2008. The Agency contends that the complainant had three months as from 11 March 2008 to submit a complaint to the Tribunal in accordance with Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency.
    "The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the conditions for the receivability of complaints submitted to it are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. An organisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal stipulates that '[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published'.
    It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 to set a different time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal by specifying that this must be done within three months rather than within ninety days. In the instant case the complainant, who was notified of the impugned decision on 11 March 2008, had ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal. While he is quite right in arguing that this period of time began on the day after that on which he had received notification and not on the date of notification itself, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law, his complaint is nonetheless time-barred, since this ninety-day period expired on 10 June. His complaint filed on 11 June 2008 was lodged on the ninety-first day after the day following that on which he was notified of the decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
    Organization rules reference: Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency

    Keywords:

    complaint; condition; date; date of notification; difference; flaw; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; organisation's duties; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; written rule;

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


 
Last updated: 23.11.2020 ^ top