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 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 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;



  • Judgment 1549


    81st Session, 1996
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "Although an organisation [may consider] late applicants, it must, whenever a competition is required or desired, announce a new deadline in the same way as it did the vacancy. It will then commit no breach of equality and the competition will be seen as fair."

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; delay; due process; equal treatment; internal candidate; new time limit; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; time limit; vacancy; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 1536


    81st Session, 1996
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks admission to the health insurance fund two years after his retirement even though the time limit for such claims is three months. "The answer to the complainant's plea of breach of equality is that the admission of the other retired official as an associate participant was a wrong decision. It should not be followed, and the board of management was right to refuse to follow it. Equality of treatment means equality in the observance of the law, not in the breach of it."

    Keywords:

    definition; equal treatment; general principle; health insurance; illness; insurance; retirement; time limit;



  • Judgment 1528


    81st Session, 1996
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The precedents are clear: "A reply to a further request for reconsideration is not a new decision setting off a new time limit for appeal. The complaint fails because it is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; confirmatory decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;



  • Judgment 1502


    81st Session, 1996
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Organization's "own interests and sound management demand strict compliance with time limits, and non-compliance means forfeiting a right or the exercise thereof: see Judgment 1446 [...] under 3, the further judgments cited therein and Judgment 1485 [...]. A time limit is not to be waived just because claims are seldom late or because the consequences of refusing waiver would be too harsh."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 1485

    Keywords:

    case law; delay; exception; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit; written rule;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "Time limits must be construed in good faith. 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."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376

    Keywords:

    case law; delay; good faith; interpretation; time bar; time limit; written rule;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The time limit 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. To make the would-be claimant wait, for any reason, before making the claim bars repayment. So the staff have grounds for supposing that they are not free [under Staff Regulation R VIII 1.01] to make claims until they can group." That being a reasonable construction, "for CERN to impose a narrower one would be an abuse of authority."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: CERN STAFF REGULATION R VIII 1.01

    Keywords:

    good faith; interpretation; no provision; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit; written rule;



  • Judgment 1500


    80th Session, 1996
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The complainant filed within the time limit in the Statute the complaint form provided for in the Schedule to the Rules. The entries sufficed to identify the decision he was impugning and the relief he was claiming. The registering of the complaint and the correcting of it within the time limit were in line with the Rules. Since the complaint was lodged in time the Organization's objection to receivability fails."

    Keywords:

    claim; complaint; correction of complaint; decision; formal requirements; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute says that a complaint must be filed within ninety days after the complainant had notice of the impugned decision; Article 6(1) of the Rules sets out the requirements of form; and 6(2) says that if not satisfied that the complaint meets those requirements the registrar shall call upon the complainant to correct it within thirty days. The Rules do not say that all the formal requirements must be met by the date of filing."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
    ARTICLE 6(1) AND 6(2) OF THE RULES


    Keywords:

    complaint; correction of complaint; date; date of notification; decision; formal requirements; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; 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