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
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
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; 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;
Judgment 2841
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the complaint is irreceivable."
"However, the Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner. According to well established case law, '[s]ince compliance with internal appeal procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed' (see Judgment 2197, under 33). In the present case, the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 18 months which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability. The Tribunal therefore awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; material damages; moral injury; organisation's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2837
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant was not granted the personal promotion she was eligible for and the Organization did not respect its obligation to publish the list of officials who were granted such a promotion.
"Contrary to the Organization, which maintains that its failure to publish the list could not have caused any injury to the complainant and in no way influenced the decision to refuse her such a promotion, the Tribunal considers that non publication of the list in question deprived the complainant of information that she might have found useful in filing a request for review [...].
The impugned decision must therefore be set aside [...], and the case must be referred back to the Organization so that it may publish the list of officials who were granted a personal promotion [...]. The complainant may, if she so wishes, file a request for review within a fixed period from the date of publication of the list in question."
Keywords:
breach; consequence; organisation's duties; personal promotion; publication; refusal; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2831
107th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The internal appeal, which the complainant lodged on 27 August 2007 against a decision dated 23 May 2007, was rejected on 18 October 2007 on the grounds that it was time barred. The complainant asks the Tribunal to set aside the decision of 18 October 2007.
"In reality the internal appeal was filed within the three-month period laid down by the Staff Regulations. The complainant received the decision of 23 May 2007 on 24 May 2007. The period for lodging an appeal began to run on the next day, i.e. 25 May 2007. It expired on 25 August 2007 which, being a Saturday, was not a working day at WIPO. The time limit for submitting an appeal was therefore extended until the next working day, in other words Monday, 27 August 2007, the date on which the internal appeal was filed.
It follows that the decision of 18 October 2007 that the internal appeal lodged by the complainant was irreceivable must be set aside.
Since the complainant succeeds, he shall be awarded 5,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the injury which he has suffered [...]."
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; saturday; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2821
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 to 10
Extract:
The complainant was employed by the ILO from 16 June 1995 until 30 April 2004 under two temporary contracts which were extended several times and did not provide for pension coverage. On 1 May 2004 he was granted a fixed-term contract and acquired the status of an official of the Organization. On 1 August 2006 he filed a grievance, requesting that the above-mentioned period be validated for the purposes of affiliation to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
"The complainant did not challenge the content of [his temporary] contracts within the six-month time limit laid down for this purpose in the contracts themselves. It follows that he was manifestly no longer in a position, by the date on which he filed his grievance with the Organization, i.e. more than two years after the end of the period covered by his last contract, to challenge the provisions thereof."
The Tribunal rejected the arguments on which the complainant relied to persuade it that this time limit was not applicable to him.
Keywords:
contract; date; extension of contract; fixed-term; internal appeal; official; participation; participation excluded; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; short-term; status of complainant; time bar; time limit; unjspf; validation of service;
Judgment 2820
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"As the FAO raised the question of the applicability of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, for the sake of completeness the Tribunal makes the following observation. Article VII, paragraph 3, provides that if the Administration fails to take a decision within sixty days of the notification of a claim, the official may have recourse to the Tribunal and the complaint is receivable in the same manner as a complaint taken against a final decision. In Judgment 2784, under 6, the Tribunal held that paragraph 3 only applies to an anticipated final decision. In the present case, it is clear that no final decision could be anticipated until the complainant submitted his appeal to the Appeals Committee."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2784
Keywords:
decision; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2818
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In Judgment 2011 the Tribunal stated the following: «A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits [...], nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken [...].»"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2011
Keywords:
decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
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 2798
106th Session, 2009
International Organisation of Vine and Wine
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Director General of the OIV was notified in April 2006 that the ILO Governing Body had approved the OIV recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The complainant's counsel was so informed on 20 November 2006. The Organisation received on 3 August 2007 the complainant's request for re-examination of her dismissal. On 18 december 2007 the complainant filed a complaint with the Tribunal in which she impugned the implied rejection of her request for re-examination.
"It is true that the recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction [...] was brought to the complainant's attention on 20 November 2006 at the latest. Given this fact and the particular circumstances of this case, the principle of good faith makes it necessary to choose this date alone, that is to say the date on which the complainant possessed all the information enabling her to defend her interests, as the starting point of the period within which a complaint could be filed with the Tribunal. The request for re-examination received by the Organisation on 3 August 2007 could not, however, have the effect of reopening the time limit for filing a complaint. The Tribunal is therefore of the view that the complainant, who under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal had ninety days as from 20 November 2006 to file her complaint, but who did not do so until 18 December 2007, was at all events time-barred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2790
106th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"A second decision whose purpose is identical to that of a previous decision may [...] constitute a new decision and set off a new time limit for an appeal if it provides further justification, relates to different issues or is based on new grounds."
Keywords:
decision; definition; difference; grounds; purpose; time limit;
Judgment 2780
106th Session, 2009
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"With regard to the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal's case law indicates that this provision must be interpreted in the light of Article VII, paragraph 1, which stipulates that a complaint shall not be receivable unless the internal means of redress provided by the applicable Staff Regulations have been exhausted. Hence, where an organisation takes any decision "upon any claim of an official" - in the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3 - within the sixty-day period thus stipulated, and particularly where it forwards the request to the competent advisory appeal body before the expiry of that period, this step forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
Keywords:
case law; complaint; decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2722
105th Session, 2008
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466 and 2463, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, because 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. As recalled in Judgment 1466, the only exceptions to this rule that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time (see Judgment 21), or where the 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 (see Judgment 752). It does not, however, appear from the evidence, nor is it even alleged that the complainants in this case found themselves in either of these situations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2463, 2722
Keywords:
breach; case law; complaint; equity; exception; force majeure; good faith; grounds; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2715
104th Session, 2008
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organization submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not supply the certified translation into French of certain appended items of evidence [...] within the thirty-day period he was allowed under Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal. "It would be excessively formalistic to endorse the Organization's view that a complaint registered within the time limit laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal is irreceivable merely because the translation of some appended items of evidence was supplied only after some delay. The only consequence thereof should be that the Tribunal should disregard the items not produced in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; complaint; consequence; correction of complaint; delay; disclosure of evidence; flaw; grounds; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2708
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"The Organization [...] submits that the complaint is irreceivable. It asserts that the complainant's representative was notified of the impugned decision of 15 August 2006 that same day, and that the complaint filed with the Registry of the Tribunal on 15 November 2006 was therefore lodged outside the ninety-day period laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which in its opinion expired on 13 November 2006.
The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that under Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, to be receivable, a complaint 'must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned'.
The complainant states that the Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee posted the decision of 15 August 2006 to him, together with a covering letter dated 17 August 2006 informing him that he had ninety days as from notification of the decision to file a complaint with the Tribunal, if he so wished.
The forwarding of the decision to the complainant's representative could not be deemed notification within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. For this reason the Organization's objection to receivability is unfounded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; delay; iloat statute; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
|
