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 bar (117,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Time bar
Total judgments found: 213

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >

  • Judgment 4441


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns a decision dated 5 May 2020 that he received on 7 May 2020, and he filed his complaint with the Tribunal on 6 August 2020.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; late filing; summary procedure; time bar;



  • Judgment 4426


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to retroactively promote her while she was on sick leave.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; promotion; sick leave; time bar;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Consistent principle has it that a complainant must comply with the time limits and the procedures, as set out in the organisation’s internal rules and regulations and that, where a complainant does not comply with prescribed time limits for lodging a request for review, a grievance and/or an appeal, the complaint may be irreceivable for the complainant’s failure to exhaust all internal means of redress in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute (see, for example, Judgments 4103, consideration 1, and 4221, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4103, 4221

    Keywords:

    internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; time bar;



  • Judgment 4402


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his position.

    Considerations 4-6

    Extract:

    Access to the Tribunal is generally conditioned by Article VII of its Statute, which requires that a complainant exhaust internal means of redress. It is also conditioned by the need for a complainant to raise a case of non-observance of the terms of appointment or non-observance of applicable Staff Regulations (see Article II of the Statute). The complainant does not point to any provision in IFAD’s Staff Rules or any other normative legal document applicable at the time he made his request on 27 July 2017 expressly conferring on an individual staff member a right to make such a request directly to the Director HRD and thereby seek to have her or his position reclassified or expressly creating any corresponding duty on the organisation to consider and determine such a request.

    The complainant seeks to avoid the consequences of there being no express right as just discussed by arguing that the reorganisation of LEG in June 2015 required the Director HRD to ensure all positions were correctly classified and, if they had not been, as argued by the complainant in his brief, the Director HRD “had an ongoing obligation to do so whenever the matter was brought to his attention”. Even accepting, for present purposes, that there had been an obligation during the reorganisation to ensure positions were correctly classified, it is a large step to say that the obligation was an ongoing one, enlivened at any time by an individual who had been involved in the reorganisation requesting reclassification by correspondence directly with the Director HRD. As the Director HRD rightly pointed out in his email of 20 October 2017, any failure to address correctly the complainant’s classification during the reorganisation in 2015 should have been challenged at the time, as should have decisions made in 2012-2013 which may have borne upon his classification.

    The complainant refers to Judgment 3861 in support of a proposition that an organisation must ensure staff are properly compensated and accordingly must make sure positions are properly graded. But that judgment was far more narrowly focused. The Tribunal said “the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4)”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2768, 3861

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; post classification; reorganisation; time bar;



  • Judgment 4374


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions to abolish their posts and terminate their appointments.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    The question of whether a judgment of the Tribunal may be considered as a new fact providing an exception to the time limits for lodging an appeal was dealt with in Judgment 3002. In particular, the Tribunal found in considerations 13 to 15 of that judgment that:
    “13. [T]ime 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. 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).
    14. 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.
    15. 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 where the criticism expressed in Judgment 2359 of the conditions set by the Office for the recognition of a dependent child – which moreover confirmed the soundness of the complainant’s own criticism in this respect – cannot be regarded as unforeseeable.”

    The Tribunal underlines that established time limits, which render a decision immune from challenge if they are not observed, are fundamental to the stability of the legal relations between the parties and, accordingly, to the entire legal system of international organizations. Without time limits, there can be no stability, thus undermining the principle of legal certainty of the entire system (see, for example, Judgments 3704, consideration 3, 3795, consideration 4, and 4184, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3002, 3704, 3795, 4184

    Keywords:

    late appeal; new fact; time bar;



  • Judgment 4354


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the implied rejection of their request to correct and update judicial salary and pension.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; late filing; time bar;



  • Judgment 4334


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the implicit decision rejecting her appeal against the decision to modify her terms of assignment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; late filing; time bar;



  • Judgment 4253


    129th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    A staff member is entitled to have a regular appraisal. In the present case, this right, enshrined in Article 6.7 of the Staff Regulations, has been seriously violated for many years. The fact that the complainant did not complain about it before 2014 is not relevant, since he was not time-barred from challenging that irregularity when he filed his grievance. Similarly, the Tribunal will not take into account the fact that the absence of appraisals may not have had any impact on his career. Appraisals are not only intended to allow for promotion. They play an important role throughout a staff member’s career, including by allowing staff members to know how their superiors evaluate their work and to challenge that evaluation or improve their performance.

    Keywords:

    performance evaluation; time bar;



  • Judgment 4210


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss as irreceivable his claim for compensation for injury or illness attributable to service.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; service-incurred; time bar;



  • Judgment 4118


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Even if the Tribunal were to accept to regard the claims in question as being directed against the [...] decision of 12 July 2007, they would still be irreceivable, since they would be time-barred. Indeed, it has been established that the complainant did not impugn the said decision before the Tribunal within the period of ninety days provided for in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The decision therefore became final, and the complainant could no longer seek to challenge it in his request of 30 April 2015, almost eight years later. As a result, on this issue, the implied decision of the President of the Office to reject that request must be considered as purely confirmatory of the earlier decision of 12 July 2007. As such, it could not set off a new time limit for an appeal by the complainant (see, for example, Judgments 698, consideration 7, 1304, consideration 5, 2449, consideration 9, or 3002, consideration 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 698, 1304, 2449, 3002

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 4101


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that a complainant must not only have exhausted all internal remedies within his organization but also have duly complied with the rules governing the internal appeal procedure. Thus, if the internal appeal was irreceivable under those rules, the complaint filed with the Tribunal will also be irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal (see Judgment 1244, consideration 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1244

    Keywords:

    failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has observed on various occasions, time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions. To allow otherwise would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations (see Judgments 3704, considerations 2 and 3, and 3923, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3704, 3923

    Keywords:

    internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; time bar;



  • Judgment 4100


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law establishes that a known fact arising from an earlier administrative decision or a failure to act on the part of the Administration may be relied on in a subsequent proceeding even though the earlier decision or failure to act was not challenged in a timely manner (see Judgments 1982, under 7, and 3380, under 8). Thus, the complainant may refer to the cancellation of the earlier selection process in the present complaint, for example, as part of the chronology leading up to this case.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1982, 3380

    Keywords:

    late appeal; time bar;



  • Judgment 4099


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her position.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    As regards the appointment of the incumbent of post 2.70011 at that time, the cancellation of which is requested by the complainant, the Tribunal notes that this request is, in any case, irreceivable since this decision has clearly become final, no appeal having been filed against it with the internal appeal bodies within the applicable deadline [...].

    Keywords:

    time bar;



  • Judgment 4087


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he took part and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [...] It should be recalled that the date of filing of complaints and briefs before the Tribunal is, in principle, the date on which they are sent and not the date on which they are received by the Registry (see, for example, Judgment 3566, consideration 3). The file contains a delivery receipt showing that the reply was deposited at the International Labour Office, secretariat of the International Labour Organization, where the Tribunal is based, on 15 June 2015. As the reply was thus sent on that date at the latest, that is within the prescribed time limit, which expired that evening, the complainant is wrong to claim that it was filed late (see Judgment 3648, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3566, 3648

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of filing; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 4065


    127th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [The complainant's] purported challenge to the FAO’s decision to dismiss a colleague on disciplinary grounds is irreceivable as contrary to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute because he seeks to challenge a decision which is not concerned with the non-observance of the terms of his appointment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 3973


    125th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who was dismissed for misconduct, impugns the Director General’s final decision endorsing the Global Board of Appeal’s recommendation to dismiss his appeal.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; summary procedure; time bar;



  • Judgment 3965


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contends that the EPO did not properly address or investigate his claim of harassment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The President’s decision, communicated by the letter of 13 October 2009, was based on the Ombudsman’s comments, which did not comply with Article 11 of Circular No. 286, and the decision itself did not correspond to what Article 12 of the Circular required. Most importantly, the decision of 13 October 2009 did not clearly reject the complainant’s harassment complaint or determine any other course of action on it. The complainant was therefore not only deprived of his right to have his complaint dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules, but was also misled as to the possibilities of challenging a decision. Accordingly, the decision of 13 October 2009 must be set aside. As this decision was ambiguous and misleading, the filing of the internal appeal on 19 April 2010 comes within the scope of the exceptions that the Tribunal has established for accepting a late internal appeal (see, for example, Judgments 1466, consideration 5, 2722, consideration 3, and 3406, consideration 13). To the extent that the IAC’s majority opinion and the impugned decision of the President were based on the argument that the appeal was irreceivable, they are tainted with an error of law and the impugned decision of 14 February 2012 will therefore be set aside.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 3406

    Keywords:

    exception; internal appeal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3947


    125th Session, 2018
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    With respect to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal’s case law requires strict adherence to the ninety-day time limit on the grounds that time limits are an objective matter of fact and that strict adherence is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions. It was relevantly stated in Judgment 3559, consideration 3, that:
    “Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”. It is not within the competence of the Tribunal to extend this period of time set forth by the Statute. As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, this time limit is an objective matter of fact and the Tribunal will not entertain a complaint filed after it has expired. 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 the time bar. The ninety-day period begins to run on the day following the date of notification of the impugned decision. Where the ninetieth day falls on a public holiday, the period is extended until the next business day (see Judgments 2250, under 8, 3393, under 1, and 3467, under 2).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3559

    Keywords:

    receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3926


    125th Session, 2018
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who was recruited on 15 May 2000 as a student air traffic controller, challenges the application of provisions adopted after his recruitment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; internal remedies exhausted; time bar;



  • Judgment 3914


    125th Session, 2018
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his project-based fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes that the clause in the complainant’s contract relevantly states: “Your attention is drawn to Staff Rules 114.3 and 114.5, which [...] provide for the maximum time-periods within which you may request a review of, or appeal, the terms and conditions of your recruitment.” The complainant did not contest the subjection of his contract to the Short-Term Staff Rules until he raised it in his request for review dated 22 December 2014 and subsequently in his internal appeal. The Tribunal therefore holds that the JAB and the Director General correctly concluded that this claim was then time-barred.

    Keywords:

    time bar;



  • Judgment 3911


    125th Session, 2018
    ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Precedent [...] has it that where a staff member fails to challenge an appraisal report by lodging an internal appeal against it within the stipulated time, the report becomes final and may not be called into question, even with regard to its lawfulness (see, for example, Judgments 3059, under 7, and 3666, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3059, 3666

    Keywords:

    performance report; time bar;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.11.2022 ^ top