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: 219

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



  • Judgment 1986


    89th Session, 2000
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "A decision not to decide upon a request by an employee for the exercise of his alleged rights is nonetheless a decision. It may accordingly be impugned before the Tribunal but only within the time limits prescribed by Article VII of the Tribunal's Statute; those limits started to run on 18 November 1997. They were not suspended or revived by the complainants' repeated requests to the administration or by the latter's repeated refusals to make any substantive decision until the matter had been decided by the Council of the organisation. If the complainants were dissatisfied with the Director-General's decision not to decide, they should have filed their complaints with the Tribunal within ninety days of receiving such decision. Since they did not do so, they must now wait until they receive a substantive decision on the merits of their claim."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; time bar; 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 1700


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

    Consideration 28

    Extract:

    "Staff members are expected to know their rights: ignorance of the law is no excuse." For failure to lodge a timely appeal.

    Keywords:

    duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules; time bar;



  • 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 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 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 1466


    80th Session, 1996
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "Precedent has it that a time limit is a matter of objective fact and begins to run when a decision is notified. [...] The only exceptions that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the decision (see Judgment 21 [...]) and where the defendant has misled him or withheld some document from him in breach of good faith (see Judgment 752)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 752

    Keywords:

    case law; exception; force majeure; good faith; organisation; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1462


    79th Session, 1995
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Vide Judgment 398, considerations 1 and 2.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 92 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS GOVERNING OFFICIALS OF THE EUROCONTROL AGENCY
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 398

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; time bar;



  • Judgment 1451


    79th Session, 1995
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    The organisation objects to the receivability of the complaint because "the impugned decision makes amendments to the regulations and is therefore a general one about the tenor of rules. As was said in Judgment 1393, under 6 to 8, the Tribunal has often ruled on the issue, especially for the purpose of determining when the time limit starts for appeal. It has held that where a general decision gives rise to decisions affecting individuals the time limit is set off only on notification to the official of the individual decision that affects him. Moreover, as was held in Judgment 1000, under 12, the employee may, when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly, 'challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision [...] that affords the basis of the individual one'. In sum, the staff member need not ordinarily impugn at once a general decision he believes has caused him injury but may, without any risk of being time-barred, wait until the general decision affects him in the form of an individual one."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1393

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complaint; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1442


    79th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The EPO pleads that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that theinternal appeal came too long after the announcement of the disputed measure and the general decision to apply it to the staff. "The objection cannot be sustained. What the complainant is impugning is not those general decisions but theapplication of them to himself which would be the consequence of the EPO's holding to its - in his view mistaken - interpretation of them."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1413


    78th Session, 1995
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[The complainant's] claim to a higher grade is irreceivable. Even if her career did suffer delay she may not seek redress on that account in the context of the choice of career path; nor may she impugn any decision that she failed to challenge in time or object to her grading as administrative assistant."

    Keywords:

    assignment; career; complaint; delay; post classification; promotion; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1393


    78th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "There is no reason of public policy why an organisation should not entertain a claim, even when it is premature, pending the notification of an individual decision. That is the approach that the EPO took when, instead of warning the complainant forthwith that his appeal was premature, it entertained his claims - just as it entertained all the others - and forwarded them, after what it described as preliminary study, to the Appeals Committee. So it was in breach of good faith in objecting to receivability before the Committee at a time when the time limits set off by its individual decisions had already run out. The Tribunal accordingly holds that under the circumstances the complainant is right to plead that he was caught in a procedural trap."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; date; general decision; good faith; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Vide Judgment 1279, consideration 9.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1279

    Keywords:

    case law; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "Consistent rulings by the Tribunal make it plain that the act which is challengeable and so sets off the time limit will ordinarily be some individual decision notified to the staff member. Only that decision affords him unquestionable and final notice that the time limit is set off and that he will have to act if he wants to assert his rights."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 323, 398, 624, 625, 626, 902, 963, 1081, 1101, 1134, 1148

    Keywords:

    case law; cause of action; date of notification; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1366


    77th Session, 1994
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 13-14

    Extract:

    The complainant's education grant gave rise to an overpayment. He pleads that there is a time limit for the recovery of overpayments. The UPU observes that "any payment made in error may be recovered" but it has nevertheless waived some of the sum due. "In the circumstances the time limit the union has set is much to the complainant's advantage and his plea under this head therefore fails."

    Keywords:

    amount; education expenses; recovery of overpayment; refund; time bar; time limit; unjust enrichment;



  • Judgment 1305


    76th Session, 1994
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 18-19

    Extract:

    The complainant is unable to provide any proof of the date on which he says he filed his complaint with the Tribunal. "The Tribunal observes that its Rules of Court are liberal in that for the purpose of reckoning the time limit Article 6(3) [*] takes the date of dispatch and thereby relieves the complainant of liability for any faulty transmittal after dispatch. "That makes it the more important to establish the date of dispatch beyond doubt in each case. [...] The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence of the dispatch of his complaint. [...] Although the Tribunal does not question the sincerity of the complainant [...] it cannot treat [his] assertions as if they were objective evidence: if it did so it would be affording an opportunity for fraudulent evasion of time limits."
    *superseded by Article 4(2) of the Tribunal's Rules as in force since 1 May 1994

    Keywords:

    complaint; date; evidence; formal requirements; iloat statute; lack of evidence; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1279


    75th Session, 1993
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The purpose of time limits is to make for the stability in law that both sides require. Management has an interest in knowing that the decisions it takes are beyond challenge; and the staff too need to know, especially when administrative action is taken at successive stages from the general to the particular, just when they may act without fear of having their suit rejected as premature or time-barred."

    Keywords:

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



  • Judgment 1256


    75th Session, 1993
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant asked the Director-General to review his decision to reject his application for a vacant post after the expiry of the one month delay for filing of an internal appeal. He wants the Tribunal to acknowledge the exceptional character of his case as justifying an extension of the normally applicable time limit. "According to precedent a complainant may not be deemed to have exhausted the means of redress at his disposal within the organisation unless he has followed the prescribed internal procedure for appeal and in particular observed the time limits. So if his internal appeal was out of time his complaint to this Tribunal will also be irreceivable under Article VII(1)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
    Organization rules reference: UPU STAFF RULE 111.3

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    To escape the time bar the complainant relies on UPU Staff Rule 111.3.4, which allows the Joint Appeals Committee to waive the time limit in exceptional circumstances. "As the Union observes, the time limit which the Committee may waive is not the one in 111.3.1 - the one month for submitting a request for review to the Director-General - but only the one for appeal to the Committee against the decision rejecting such request." The complaint is therefore irreceivable.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: UPU STAFF RULE 111.3

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 1245


    74th Session, 1993
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The Agency alleges that it informed her by a personnel notice that she had been excluded from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. The Tribunal holds that the notice "was wholly inadequate to alert her to the purpose and substance of the administrative decision that had been taken. Since she may not be deemed in the circumstances to have received proper 'notification' as prescribed in Rule 12.01.1 (d) (1), the time limit did not then run. Her present complaint is therefore receivable."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: IAEA PROVISIONAL STAFF RULE 12.01.1 (D) (1)

    Keywords:

    complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar;



  • Judgment 1232


    74th Session, 1993
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant was sentenced to imprisonment in his country of origin. After his release, however, he was not allowed to go abroad. after being entitled to do so, he sent a letter to the Director-General regarding the organization's acceptance of his application for early retirement, which he had worded under duress, when he was still compelled to remain in his country. Receiving no answer and about one year after leaving the country, he challenged the rejection he inferred from the Director-General's silence. The complainant went to the Appeals Board, but the Director-General rejected its recommendation on the grounds that the appeal was irreceivable, being out of time. The Tribunal considers that "the delay was understandable in the unusual circumstances of [the] case [...] the conclusion is that he was not out of time."

    Keywords:

    delay; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; receivability of the complaint; time bar;

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


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top