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: 312

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



  • Judgment 1892


    88th Session, 2000
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The claims relating to the failure to execute the judgment sending the case back to the organisation for a new ruling on his appeal [...] must be disallowed because the [...] procedure necessitated by the judgment quashing the original decision was [...] implemented swiftly." [After a new recommendation by the Joint Committee for Disputes, the Director General rejected the complainant's new internal appeal three and a half months after the Tribunal's judgment that was then made the subject of an application for execution.]

    Keywords:

    application for execution; case sent back to organisation; decision; decision quashed; delay; execution of judgment; internal appeal; judgment of the tribunal; remand; time limit;



  • Judgment 1877


    87th Session, 1999
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The [organisation] rightly asserts that out of respect for the lawfulness of the Administration's action and the equality of treatment of staff it is obliged to respect rules prescribing time limits (see Judgment 1502, in re Baillon, under 6 and the judgments cited therein). However, both organisation and staff members are each required to respect the rules of good faith (see Judgment 1756 in re Awoyemi, and the judgments cited therein), especially in cases of respect for time limits. "If an organisation wants to put procedural restrictions on one of the staff member's rights or on the exercise thereof it must draft clearly enough to avoid setting traps. If it fails to do so, the text may be construed in the staff member's favour" (see Judgment 1502 under 6). The Tribunal also noted that the time limit for claims must start "at the date at which payment becomes due. If that were not so, the lapse of time would work to the claimant's detriment for as long as the rules precluded his making the claim" (see the same Judgment under 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1502

    Keywords:

    claim; time limit;



  • Judgment 1832


    86th Session, 1999
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "A staff member who appeals to the wrong [internal appeals] body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. Time and again the Tribunal has held that, though rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must be construed with common sense and not set traps for the staff member: see Judgment1734 [and] any penalty for breaking such a rule must be reasonably fitting. [...] When there are two authorities that may be competent it is easy enough for one to forward a misdirected appeal to the other. If the staff member filed it in time, even with the wrong authority, then it will be receivable, and that authority will simply forward it without ado to the other one."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734

    Keywords:

    competence; complainant; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;



  • Judgment 1829


    86th Session, 1999
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6-8

    Extract:

    "The complainant asks the Tribunal to review [an administrative decision] notwithstanding that the internal appeal procedure has not been completed. The Tribunal's case law has it that where the pursuit of the internal remedies is unreasonably delayed the requirement of Article VII(1) will have been met if, though doing everything that can be expected to get the matter concluded, the complainant can show that the internal appeal proceedings are unlikely to end within a reasonable time. [The Tribunal refers to the case law.] The complainant's internal appeal was received by the organisation on 16 April 1997. Her statement is lengthy and has 24 annexes. Less than a month later the Vice-President completed his initial assessment of her claims and referred the matter to the Appeals Committee. She filed this complaint just over three months later. The Tribunal holds that at the date of filing the present complaint the internal appeal process had not been unreasonably delayed and there was no indication that it was unlikely to come to an end within a reasonable time."

    Reference(s)

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

    Keywords:

    case law; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 1812


    86th Session, 1999
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "There is no single time limit for executing judgments. The Tribunal's practice is to let the organisation have a reasonable amount of time to act, and what is reasonable will depend, among other things, on the circumstances and the issues at stake. To be sure, the Tribunal has said more than once that any lump-sum award by the Tribunal is to be paid in 30 days [see Judgments 1620 and 1748]. That deadline holds good when the organisation may readily work out the amount due. But it does not when a case is sent back for a new decision: the time to be allowed will then turn on the peculiarities of the case."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1620, 1748

    Keywords:

    application for execution; case law; case sent back to organisation; delay; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; practice; time limit; tribunal;



  • Judgment 1787


    86th Session, 1999
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "When a decision is adverse to a staff member the competent administrative authority does have to reveal the reasons for it. But when the result of a competition is announced and, more broadly, when a choice is made between candidates the reasons for the choice need not be notified at the same time as the decision."

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; procedure before the tribunal; time limit;



  • Judgment 1786


    86th Session, 1999
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "According to consistent precedent, when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly, the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision'. That ruling does not allow direct challenge to a general decision of a kind that must ordinarily be given effect by individual decision [see Judgment 1000]. As the Tribunal said in Judgments 624 [...] and 663 [...] and has often said since, the staff member must impugn an individual decision applying a general one and, if need be, may for that purpose challenge the lawfulness of the general one without any risk of being told that such challenge is time-barred."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 624, 663, 1000

    Keywords:

    case law; cause of action; complaint; general decision; individual decision; official; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1740


    85th Session, 1998
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "In line with consistent precedent the Tribunal will take [...] the date [the addressee] himself entered on the text, as the date of receipt of the decision. That he did not look at it until later is immaterial. What counts is the date at which he got it."

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of notification; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1734


    85th Session, 1998
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The observance of time limits is not an empty formality but essential to sound management. Only in exceptional cases may they be waived, namely when to demand strict compliance would cause a flagrant miscarriage of justice and good faith must instead prevail. Of course the rules of good faith apply to organisation and employee alike. It would be in bad faith for the organisation to make a staff member bear the consequences of any obscurity in the rules or in its dealings with him. Thus the Tribunal has often ruled that time limits and other procedural requirements should not set traps: see Judgments 522 [...], 607 [...], 873 [...], 1247 [...], 1317 [...], 1376 [...] and 1502 [...]. Likewise, good faith requires the staff member to pay due heed to the organisation's rules on such matters as dispute procedures. Written rules are there to be consulted and, if need be, the staff member may seek help from colleagues, from a staff association or from counsel in understanding them.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 522, 607, 873, 1247, 1317, 1376, 1502

    Keywords:

    claim; time limit;



  • Judgment 1720


    84th Session, 1998
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "A strong line of precedent has it that time limits, though necessary in law, are not supposed to set traps: they are to be applied with the good faith that must govern relations between an international organisation and its staff."

    Keywords:

    good faith; internal appeal; interpretation; procedure before the tribunal; time limit; written rule;



  • Judgment 1718


    84th Session, 1998
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute, which is about the implied rejection of a claim, serves to allow a complainant who has got no decision on his claim to act as if a final decision had been taken. "If no decision is forthcoming within sixty days of the notification of the claim to the administration, the complainant may, within a further time limit of ninety days, bring a complaint against the implied rejection, which becomes the impugned decision. [...] There is no provision for applying to the Tribunal for an order to the Director general to state a negative final decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of notification; iloat statute; implied decision; interpretation; time limit;



  • Judgment 1700


    84th Session, 1998
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 27

    Extract:

    Discretion to determine whether there are exceptional circumstances to warrant waver of the time limits for internal appeal is vested in the Joint Appeals Board. "It is the Board's decision which is relevant, and the question does not arise of substituting the Tribunal's opinion for the Board's. Only if there is some fatal flaw in the Board's decision may the Tribunal intervene."

    Keywords:

    decision; exception; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judicial review; limits; report; time limit;



  • Judgment 1699


    84th Session, 1998
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 29

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal does not accept that a request for review precludes a negotiated settlement. There is no reason why a staff member cannot keep to the time limit laid down by the Staff Regulations and Rules and at the same time negotiate. And he will be in a stronger negotiating position if he has lodged a timely appeal."

    Keywords:

    collective bargaining; internal appeal; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 1659


    83rd Session, 1997
    European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainants "did not go to the Board until [...] six-and-a-half months after they had had notice of dismissal. The [objection to receivability] would no doubt succeed if the rules set a time limit for appeal, but they do not. It is perhaps a pity that the complainants tarried until the very eve of dismissal. But they did expressly reserve their rights when acknowledging receipt of notice of dismissal, and they were hoping until the last day for a satisfactory outcome. So it is hardly arguable that some time limit which was not even in the rules was running against them."

    Keywords:

    exception; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; no provision; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1655


    83rd Session, 1997
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9-10

    Extract:

    The Agency submits that the complainant's appeal "was out of time because [he] filed it after the expiry of the time limit of three months in Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations. [...] The plea fails. The [Agency] acted on the appeal [...] by convening the Invalidity Committee and the Joint Committee for Disputes and by taking [a] final decision. [...] The attitude it thereby adopted towards the appeal estops it from now objecting to the receivability of the complaint. The complaint is therefore receivable."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 92(2) OF EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1653


    83rd Session, 1997
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    In accordance with Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute, "where the Staff Regulations lay down a procedure for internal appeal it must be duly followed: there must be compliance not only with the set time limits but also with any rules of procedure in the Regulations or implementing rules."

    Keywords:

    complaint; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; purport; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 1613


    82nd Session, 1997
    European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant's internal appeal was late. But EFTA itself admits to mistakes in the numbering of the provisions to which the regulations refer, "and they may well have misled the complainants." The Association set up no advisory board, though Staff Regulation 40 provided for one, and the deputy Secretary-General himself told the complainants that in the absence of a recommendation from the Advisory Board they might go to the Tribunal. "All things considered, the complaints must be declared receivable."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: EFTA STAFF REGULATION 40

    Keywords:

    acceptance; complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • Judgment 1611


    82nd Session, 1997
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "It was open to the complainant to withdraw the obviously premature complaint [...] and lodge a new one which complied with the time limit in Article VII(3) [of the Tribunal's Statute]. What his counsel supplied [...] was no new complaint but merely a version of the original one corrected in compliance with the Registrar's instructions. So for the purpose of a ruling on his observance of the time limit his complaint is still the [the original one]." The claim in that complaint being therefore premature, it is for that reason irreceivable too.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint; correction of complaint; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 1609


    82nd Session, 1997
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Although the complainants "corrected their second complaints more than ninety days after getting notice of the decisions, they did not act out of time on that account. They filed in time with the Tribunal complaint forms identifying the decisions they were impugning; their counsel duly applied for extensions of the time limit for correction; and those extensions were duly granted under Article 14 of the Tribunal's Rules."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 14 OF THE RULES

    Keywords:

    complaint; correction of complaint; date of notification; decision; iloat statute; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 1554


    81st Session, 1996
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "The complainant is wrong in contending that for challenging the non-renewal of his contract the time limit of ninety days was somehow held over because of a connexion with his application for a post. His complaint shows two distinct elements: the non-renewal of his contract on 31 January 1994 and his unsuccessful application for a post in April 1994. His failure to file a complaint with the Tribunal within ninety days of 31 January 1994 means that any claim in relation to his contract is time-barred. As for his application for a post, by the time he made it he was no longer an employee of the Organisation. Since an outside candidate for employment does not have access to the Tribunal his complaint is irreceivable in that regard as well."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; complainant; contract; external candidate; locus standi; non-renewal of contract; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; time bar; time limit;

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


 
Last updated: 26.11.2021 ^ top