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: 348
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 | next >
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;
Judgment 1486
80th Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is true that Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires a complainant, before he files suit with the Tribunal, not just to apply for internal review but also to await the outcome of the internal proceedings. Yet that is not a hard-and-fast rule, even though the Statute does not allow any express derogation. If a complainant does his utmost to procure a decision, and if nevertheless the internal appeals body evinces by its statements or conduct an intention not to report within a reasonable time, justice requires that an exception be made. A mere failure to proceed with all proper speed and diligence is not enough: it is only if the proceedings have been so protracted that the delay is inordinate, unexplained and inexcusable that such an intention will be inferred: see Judgments 408 [...] and 451 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 408, 451
Keywords:
administrative delay; case law; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant had done everything in his power to exhaust his internal remedies and [at a certain date] it was quite clear that the internal process of review would not be concluded within a time which the Tribunal may regard as reasonable in the circumstances. [...] The complaint is therefore receivable."
Keywords:
administrative delay; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1468
80th Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The case turns on a question whose answer may affect another official adversely. "She is invited to make such submissions to the Tribunal as she thinks fit, and to do so within thirty days of her receiving the text of the present judgment, which is an interlocutory order. The Union and the complainant may each file observations within a time limit of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of her submissions."
Keywords:
additional written submissions; further submissions; interlocutory order; staff member's interest; submissions; time limit;
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 1464
80th Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant contends that her complaint is receivable because she may act under Article VII(3), the organization having failed to take its decision on her appeal within the sixty days' time limit set in that provision. But her reading of VII(3) is mistaken. It does not require that the process of appeal be completed within sixty days."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; interpretation; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
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 1438
79th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was denied a further extension of the period in which he was entitled to claim the refund of removal expenses. The Tribunal considers that "in accordance with its case law, [it] will not substitute its own views for those of the director-general in a matter in which he has discretion."
Keywords:
case law; discretion; executive head; judicial review; new time limit; refund; removal expenses; time limit;
Judgment 1417
78th Session, 1995
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
In accordance with Article 11(1) of its Rules the Tribunal invites the International Civil Service Commission "by the present order to make any further submissions in answer to the complainants' claims [...] that it considers necessary. It will allow the Commission thirty days in which to do so."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11(1) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
additional written submissions; icsc statute; iloat statute; interlocutory order; 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 1408
78th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The decision not to allow the abatement of internal tax had a continuing effect which was reflected in each of the complainant's payslips."
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; payslip; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 1404
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant appealed to the Headquarters Appeals Board before the Regional Board had issued its report. "The complainant's own behaviour affected the regional proceedings and made for delay in the Regional Board's report and recommendation to the Regional Director. Not to be ignored either is the effect of the change in membership, which fell within the time allotted for hearing the case. On the evidence the complainant has failed to show that the Board did not intend to report within a reasonable time."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; composition of the internal appeals body; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; 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 1392
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The appeal procedure set forth in the Service Regulations is, to quote Article 106, an individual appeals system. Such too is the basic feature of the system of appeal embodied in Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal, though it is subject to the provision in Article VII(2) setting a special time limit for appeal against any decision affecting a 'class of officials', which runs from the date of issue. So it is only by virtue of an individual contract of employment with the organisation that someone may lodge a complaint and the complainant may not alter the nature of the suit by declaring when he files the complaint that he is doing so as a staff union representative."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II AND ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 106 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; general decision; iloat statute; internal appeal; locus standi; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; start of time limit; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 1380
78th Session, 1995
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant says that "the administration failed to observe the time limit of sixty days when it replied to the Joint Appeals Board on [two appeals she had lodged], in breach of Rule 112.02(b)(ii). This provision has no application to the organization's reply in the internal appeals procedure: the time limit of sixty days applies to the Director-General's reply to a written request under Rule 112.02(a) for review of an administrative decision."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: STAFF RULE 112.02
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 1376
77th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The purpose of Headquarters Board of Appeal's rules of procedure is "to promote the expeditious and orderly hearing of appeals, not to deprive appellants of any right of appeal conferred on them by the Staff Rules."
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; purpose; right of appeal; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"According to the case law - see for example Judgment 607 [...] under 8 - though the rules on internal appeals must be respected because proper administration so requires, 'they are not supposed to be a trap or a means of catching out a staff member who acts in good faith'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 607
Keywords:
case law; good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; right of appeal; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 1374
77th Session, 1994
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Even if the reduction-in-force procedure had been properly carried out the letters [which the PAHO sent the complainants] did not give valid notice of termination. They gave the complainants only just over one month's notice [...], not the three months to which they were entitled under Rule 1050.3. For that reason too the complainants' contracts must be deemed to have been extended by implication."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PAHO STAFF RULE 1050.3
Keywords:
contract; flaw; intervention; non-renewal of contract; notice; procedure before the tribunal; reinstatement; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 1367
77th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11 and 16
Extract:
"The dispute is about the time in which a staff member of WHO may exercise his right to removal of his household effects at the organization's expense upon retirement. [...] The Director-General's decision is arbitrary, not just because it fails to state the reasons for choosing the [...] new deadline for the refund of the costs of removal, but because it gives no consistent reply to the complainant's claim. It is a wrong exercise of discretion."
Keywords:
bias; breach; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; limits; refund; removal expenses; 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 1362
77th Session, 1994
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal must rule yet again on WIPO's refusal to discharge the obligation to decide on reinstatement. As it has stated more than once, its judgments are to be given immediate effect. In the regrettable event that the Organization continues to disregard that rule and fails to act within 30 days of the date of delivery of this judgment, it must pay the complainant 10,000 swiss francs by way of penalty for each further month of delay."
Keywords:
amount; application for execution; continuing breach; decision; delay; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; penalty for delay; refusal; reinstatement; res judicata; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 | next >
|
