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 2841
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the complaint is irreceivable."
"However, the Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner. According to well established case law, '[s]ince compliance with internal appeal procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed' (see Judgment 2197, under 33). In the present case, the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 18 months which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability. The Tribunal therefore awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay; internal appeal; material damages; moral injury; organisation's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2837
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant was not granted the personal promotion she was eligible for and the Organization did not respect its obligation to publish the list of officials who were granted such a promotion.
"Contrary to the Organization, which maintains that its failure to publish the list could not have caused any injury to the complainant and in no way influenced the decision to refuse her such a promotion, the Tribunal considers that non publication of the list in question deprived the complainant of information that she might have found useful in filing a request for review [...].
The impugned decision must therefore be set aside [...], and the case must be referred back to the Organization so that it may publish the list of officials who were granted a personal promotion [...]. The complainant may, if she so wishes, file a request for review within a fixed period from the date of publication of the list in question."
Keywords:
breach; consequence; organisation's duties; personal promotion; publication; refusal; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2831
107th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The internal appeal, which the complainant lodged on 27 August 2007 against a decision dated 23 May 2007, was rejected on 18 October 2007 on the grounds that it was time barred. The complainant asks the Tribunal to set aside the decision of 18 October 2007.
"In reality the internal appeal was filed within the three-month period laid down by the Staff Regulations. The complainant received the decision of 23 May 2007 on 24 May 2007. The period for lodging an appeal began to run on the next day, i.e. 25 May 2007. It expired on 25 August 2007 which, being a Saturday, was not a working day at WIPO. The time limit for submitting an appeal was therefore extended until the next working day, in other words Monday, 27 August 2007, the date on which the internal appeal was filed.
It follows that the decision of 18 October 2007 that the internal appeal lodged by the complainant was irreceivable must be set aside.
Since the complainant succeeds, he shall be awarded 5,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the injury which he has suffered [...]."
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; saturday; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2821
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 to 10
Extract:
The complainant was employed by the ILO from 16 June 1995 until 30 April 2004 under two temporary contracts which were extended several times and did not provide for pension coverage. On 1 May 2004 he was granted a fixed-term contract and acquired the status of an official of the Organization. On 1 August 2006 he filed a grievance, requesting that the above-mentioned period be validated for the purposes of affiliation to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
"The complainant did not challenge the content of [his temporary] contracts within the six-month time limit laid down for this purpose in the contracts themselves. It follows that he was manifestly no longer in a position, by the date on which he filed his grievance with the Organization, i.e. more than two years after the end of the period covered by his last contract, to challenge the provisions thereof."
The Tribunal rejected the arguments on which the complainant relied to persuade it that this time limit was not applicable to him.
Keywords:
contract; date; extension of contract; fixed-term; internal appeal; official; participation; participation excluded; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; short-term; status of complainant; time bar; time limit; unjspf; validation of service;
Judgment 2820
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"As the FAO raised the question of the applicability of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute, for the sake of completeness the Tribunal makes the following observation. Article VII, paragraph 3, provides that if the Administration fails to take a decision within sixty days of the notification of a claim, the official may have recourse to the Tribunal and the complaint is receivable in the same manner as a complaint taken against a final decision. In Judgment 2784, under 6, the Tribunal held that paragraph 3 only applies to an anticipated final decision. In the present case, it is clear that no final decision could be anticipated until the complainant submitted his appeal to the Appeals Committee."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2784
Keywords:
decision; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2818
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In Judgment 2011 the Tribunal stated the following: «A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits [...], nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken [...].»"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2011
Keywords:
decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2806
106th Session, 2009
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
In Judgment 2575, the Tribunal annulled a decision to transfer the complainant from Vienna to Berlin. No action was taken to return him to Vienna. Instead, on 13 February 2007, the IOM informed him that he was to be transferred to Berlin with immediate effect. In Judgment 2691, the Tribunal declared that the decision of 13 February 2007 was "null and void ab initio".
"Like all judicial bodies, the Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction and power to take action to ensure that its judgments are implemented. That power may be exercised in any proceedings where a question is raised with respect to the implementation of a judgment. Accordingly, an order will be made for a penalty to be paid in the event that [the complainant] is not posted to Vienna within 30 days."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2575, 2691
Keywords:
application for interpretation; application for review; continuing breach; delay; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; organisation's duties; res judicata; time limit;
Judgment 2798
106th Session, 2009
International Organisation of Vine and Wine
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Director General of the OIV was notified in April 2006 that the ILO Governing Body had approved the OIV recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The complainant's counsel was so informed on 20 November 2006. The Organisation received on 3 August 2007 the complainant's request for re-examination of her dismissal. On 18 december 2007 the complainant filed a complaint with the Tribunal in which she impugned the implied rejection of her request for re-examination.
"It is true that the recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction [...] was brought to the complainant's attention on 20 November 2006 at the latest. Given this fact and the particular circumstances of this case, the principle of good faith makes it necessary to choose this date alone, that is to say the date on which the complainant possessed all the information enabling her to defend her interests, as the starting point of the period within which a complaint could be filed with the Tribunal. The request for re-examination received by the Organisation on 3 August 2007 could not, however, have the effect of reopening the time limit for filing a complaint. The Tribunal is therefore of the view that the complainant, who under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal had ninety days as from 20 November 2006 to file her complaint, but who did not do so until 18 December 2007, was at all events time-barred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2790
106th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"A second decision whose purpose is identical to that of a previous decision may [...] constitute a new decision and set off a new time limit for an appeal if it provides further justification, relates to different issues or is based on new grounds."
Keywords:
decision; definition; difference; grounds; purpose; time limit;
Judgment 2780
106th Session, 2009
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"With regard to the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal's case law indicates that this provision must be interpreted in the light of Article VII, paragraph 1, which stipulates that a complaint shall not be receivable unless the internal means of redress provided by the applicable Staff Regulations have been exhausted. Hence, where an organisation takes any decision "upon any claim of an official" - in the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3 - within the sixty-day period thus stipulated, and particularly where it forwards the request to the competent advisory appeal body before the expiry of that period, this step forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
Keywords:
case law; complaint; decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2722
105th Session, 2008
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466 and 2463, time 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. As recalled in Judgment 1466, the only exceptions to this rule that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time (see Judgment 21), or where the organisation by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see Judgment 752). It does not, however, appear from the evidence, nor is it even alleged that the complainants in this case found themselves in either of these situations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2463, 2722
Keywords:
breach; case law; complaint; equity; exception; force majeure; good faith; grounds; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2715
104th Session, 2008
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organization submits that the complaint is irreceivable because the complainant did not supply the certified translation into French of certain appended items of evidence [...] within the thirty-day period he was allowed under Article 6(2) of the Rules of the Tribunal. "It would be excessively formalistic to endorse the Organization's view that a complaint registered within the time limit laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal is irreceivable merely because the translation of some appended items of evidence was supplied only after some delay. The only consequence thereof should be that the Tribunal should disregard the items not produced in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; complaint; consequence; correction of complaint; delay; disclosure of evidence; flaw; grounds; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2708
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"The Organization [...] submits that the complaint is irreceivable. It asserts that the complainant's representative was notified of the impugned decision of 15 August 2006 that same day, and that the complaint filed with the Registry of the Tribunal on 15 November 2006 was therefore lodged outside the ninety-day period laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which in its opinion expired on 13 November 2006.
The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that under Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, to be receivable, a complaint 'must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned'.
The complainant states that the Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee posted the decision of 15 August 2006 to him, together with a covering letter dated 17 August 2006 informing him that he had ninety days as from notification of the decision to file a complaint with the Tribunal, if he so wished.
The forwarding of the decision to the complainant's representative could not be deemed notification within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. For this reason the Organization's objection to receivability is unfounded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; delay; iloat statute; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; time limit;
Judgment 2680
104th Session, 2008
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Although the decision [...] by which he obtained satisfaction was delivered after he had filed his complaint, the complainant is not entitled to costs. Indeed, the complaint was premature because [...] that decision was delivered within the applicable time limit."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; date; decision; no award of costs; time limit;
Judgment 2597
102nd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The expatriation allowance [...] is intended to compensate for certain disadvantages suffered by persons who are obliged, because of their work, to leave their country of origin and settle abroad. The disadvantages are indeed greater for them than for those who do not have the nationality of the country of their duty station either, but who have been living in that country for quite a long time before taking up their duties. Equal treatment demands that the provisions establishing the right of international civil servants to receive an expatriation allowance take fair and reasonable account of these different situations. The length of time for which foreign permanent employees have lived in the country where they will be serving, before they take up their duties, therefore forms an essential criterion for determining whether they may receive this allowance. It has been held that the period of three years' residence required by Article 72(1)b) of the Service Regulations is not unreasonable (see Judgment 1864, under 6)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 72(1)b) of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1864
Keywords:
allowance; compensatory measure; criteria; duty station; equal treatment; nationality; non-resident allowance; purpose; residence; time limit;
Judgment 2584
102nd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Organization contends that the complainant had until 22 September 2003 to submit his notice of appeal. As it was submitted on 2 October, UNESCO considers that it was filed outside the time limit set down in the Statutes of the Appeals Board. The Tribunal notes that a memorandum of 5 September 2003 informed the complainant that the administration would contact him with a view to reaching an amicable settlement. "If an organisation invites settlement discussions or, even, participates in discussions of that kind, its duty of good faith requires that, unless it expressly states otherwise, it is bound to treat those discussions as extending the time for the taking of any further step. That is because settlement discussions must proceed on the basis that no further step will be necessary. Where, as here, there has been no actual decision but the Organization has invited settlement discussions, the duty of good faith requires it to treat the time for taking a further step as running from the termination of those discussions and not from some earlier date identifiable as the date of an implied negative decision. That is because the invitation necessarily implies that, no matter what the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules provide, no final decision has been or will be taken during the course of discussions."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; consequence; date; decision; exception; extension of contract; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new time limit; organisation's duties; participation; procedure before the tribunal; proposal; provision; purpose; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2562
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The Organisation submits that the complaints are irreceivable because the internal appeals, although timely filed with the President of the Office, had not yet been considered by the Appeals Committee at the time when the complaints were filed. "The EPO cannot be heard to argue that the complainant has failed to exhaust internal means of redress when the sole reason for his failing to do so was the EPO's own failure to abide by its own Service Regulations and to follow the timelines under Article 109(2). [...] The complaints are [therefore] receivable."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 109(2) of EPO Service Regulations
Keywords:
absence of final decision; breach; complaint; date; executive head; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; patere legem; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2522
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal concludes that the internal appeal proceedings were not conducted with due diligence or with the care owed by an international organisation to its staff. The complainant had reason to believe that the Agency was making every effort to hamper the proceedings to prevent them from being concluded within a reasonable time. He was not informed of the final outcome of his internal appeal until nearly two months after the Director General had taken his final decision. Moreover, the latter replied to the complainant's request for review more than three months after the request was submitted, and only after an appeal had been lodged with the Joint Appeals Board. The Tribunal concludes from the above that the complainant suffered moral injury."
Keywords:
decision; delay; due process; evidence; internal appeal; late decision; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 2496
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"A decision as serious as one imposing a disciplinary measure will be lawful only provided that the rights of the staff members concerned to a fully adversarial procedure have been scrupulously respected. Charges must be precisely worded and notified sufficiently early to enable the staff member concerned to defend his case, particularly by establishing evidence and gathering testimonies which he believes are likely to refute the charges in the eyes of the disciplinary body and of the deciding authority, according to the nature of the charges against him."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; condition; date of notification; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; executive head; official; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; testimony; time limit;
Judgment 2494
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Eurocontrol contends that Mr R.'s complaint is time-barred because it was filed more than three months after the notification of the decision rejecting his internal complaint. However, the Agency has produced no evidence of the date on which that decision was effectively notified. Failing such evidence, which it is the Agency's responsibility to provide, that complaint must be regarded as having been filed in good time."
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint; date of notification; decision; disclosure of evidence; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; refusal; time bar; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 | next >
|
