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 2473
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Organization contends that since the impugned decision was notified to the complainant on 21 November 2003, he should have filed his complaint with the Tribunal, according to Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, within ninety days after the date of notification, that is to say by 19 February 2004 at the latest and not in July 2004 as was the case.
Contrary to the defendant's allegation, the complainant asserts that he received the decision dated 21 November 2003 only on 28 April 2004 following a request he made to the Director-General on 15 April 2004. Since the defendant, which bears the burden of proof in this respect, has not proved that the notification actually occurred on 21 November 2003, the Tribunal must accept the date of 28 April 2004 indicated on the note transmitting a copy of the impugned decision to the complainant, and it will therefore consider that the complaint he filed on 26 July 2004 fell within the required time limit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
burden of proof; complainant; complaint; date; date of notification; decision; executive head; iloat; iloat statute; information note; lack of evidence; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2467
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970
Keywords:
breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2458
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 7
Extract:
In Judgment 2189 the Tribunal ordered the Organization to "appoint a medical board without delay". The complainant filed an application for execution of that judgment. "Once again, the complainant attempts to bypass the internal remedies, and have her internal appeal, which has been pending for over ten years, heard by the Tribunal on its merits. To do so, she would have to persuade the Tribunal that the failure of the medical board to take up and report on her claim and thereby allow her internal appeal to proceed was due to the wilful fault or neglect of UNIDO. [But] it is clear that [...] by July 2003, the necessary preliminary steps to set up the medical board had been taken and that the delays which took place after that time were largely due to the complainant herself. [...]
The obligation imposed on the Organization by Judgment 2189 to establish a medical board without delay is not wholly a one-way street. The complainant owes a duty of good faith and in the circumstances this includes not only the duty not to impede or prevent the medical board's functioning [...] but also the duty actively to collaborate with the board and to allow it to undertake its duties effectively. If the complainant had reservations about the terms of reference of the board she no doubt had the right to make them known as she did, but she could not insist on them as non-negotiable conditions precedent to the board carrying out its inquiry."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2189
Keywords:
application for execution; delay; execution of judgment; good faith; internal appeal; medical board; order; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2439
99th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The UPU contends that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that within the time provided for under Article VII(2) of the Statute of the Tribunal, the complainant merely filed his complaint form [...] without appending the brief referred to in Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal. [...] It may be recalled [...] that the possibility of correcting a complaint which does not comply with the formal requirements of Article 6(1) of the Rules is given to international civil servants as a means of protecting them against the strict implications of a procedure with which they are not necessarily familiar."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(2) of the Statute and Article 6(1) of the Rules
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2424
98th Session, 2005
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"In accordance with its case law (see Judgment 941 in particular), the Tribunal considers that the defendant may not plead its own failure to act with regard to the complainant, who had good reason to infer that her internal complaint was still under review since she had been informed [...] that the Joint Committee for Disputes had reached an opinion of which she would soon be informed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 941
Keywords:
case law; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; report; time limit;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he Joint Committee [...] refused the complainant's request to reschedule her hearing, yet her request for postponement was justified by the fact that she was declared unfit for work and that the date of the hearing was so close (she was summoned on 4 July in the afternoon for a hearing to be held on 7 July) that it did not leave her time either to prepare her defence properly or to be assisted by a counsel of her own choosing. The Tribunal rejects the reasons given for the refusal to reschedule the hearing, which were that, since the complainant had already been heard by the Joint Committee during the procedure relating to the conversion of appointments, and since the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes considered that the case file provided them with sufficient information, a hearing before the latter Committee was unnecessary. But considering that it was the Joint Committee for Disputes itself which took the initiative of summoning the complainant to a hearing, it could hardly have deemed that hearing to be «unnecessary»."
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; contract; counsel; grounds; incapacity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; oral proceedings; sick leave; time limit;
Judgment 2414
98th Session, 2005
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In Judgment 2170 the Tribunal described the requirement of Staff Rule 12.1.5 that an annual performance report be established prior to the scheduled date of a salary increment as 'a formal one' which had to be complied with. It is important to explain why that was so. A staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service so that steps can be taken to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed. These are fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity. That is why it was said in Judgment 2170 that an organisation must 'conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that [its rules] will be followed'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 12.1.5 of the ITU
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
criteria; due process; duty to inform; good faith; increase; increment; interpretation; organisation's duties; output; patere legem; performance evaluation; performance report; respect for dignity; salary; staff regulations and rules; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2392
98th Session, 2005
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant submits that the internal appeal procedure took far too long. "To this the Fund makes two replies: first, that the complainant implicitly accepted the delays because she did not appeal directly to the Tribunal once she had decided that matters were dragging before the Joint Appeals Board; secondly, that a large part of the delay was due to the JAB itself [...]. Neither argument is persuasive. It is true that according to the case law a complainant may come directly to the Tribunal when the internal procedure takes too long (see Judgment 2196 and the cases cited therein), but the fact that a complainant does not take advantage of this cannot be held against him or her. Likewise, whether the delay was due to IFAD's tardiness (as a very large part of it clearly was) or to the malfunctioning of the JAB is simply irrelevant in light of the organisation's duty to provide to the members of its staff an efficient internal means of redress. The complainant is entitled to damages. (See Judgments 2072 and 2197.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2072, 2196, 2197
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; case law; cause; complainant; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant was not selected for a post. She contends that IFAD has not informed her of the reasons for rejecting her application. "[T]he evidence shows that, at best, the complainant was given only partial and incomplete oral reasons for the failure to give her preference, long after the internal appeal proceedings had been exhausted and the complaint to the Tribunal instituted. If reasons for a non-selection decision are to have any use at all they must be given in time for an unsuccessful candidate to decide what, if any, recourse should be sought. Here, they were not and the plea is well founded."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; complainant; delay; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; internal appeal; post; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2345
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1(c)
Extract:
"[A]n organisation, as part of its duty of care for its staff, is expected to help any staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right, if such help will enable the staff member to take useful action. If it is not too late, the organisation should also provide the staff member with procedural guidance.
In this case, [...] the Organization should have realised that the complainant was mistaken and that he did not need to wait for an authorisation before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It had enough time to point out to him that his complaint against the Director-General's decision [...] should be filed directly with the Tribunal within ninety days after the notification of the decision.
As the complainant was not given that guidance, he failed to act in time and the complaint should be declared irreceivable. Such a ruling would not, however, be compatible with the requirements of good faith which the parties and the Tribunal must observe."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; direct appeal to tribunal; duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2327
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Internal debates and discussions in the [executive body of an international organisation] are irrelevant to [the organisation's] obligation faithfully and promptly to execute the Tribunal's judgments."
Keywords:
application for execution; effect; execution of judgment; executive body; judgment of the tribunal; suspensory effects; time limit;
Judgment 2325
97th Session, 2004
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he delay of some 15 months between the selection of the successful candidate and the notification to the complainant thereof was unreasonably long. The Agency's argument to the effect that the complainant was implicitly aware of his non-selection because he knew that someone else had been placed on the post is not acceptable. It had the duty to inform the complainant in a timely manner of his non-appointment. The Agency has failed in its obligation to deal with the complainant in good faith and, while such failure can in no way affect the validity of the selection process itself, it does entitle the complainant to a nominal award of moral damages which the Tribunal fixes at 500 euros."
Keywords:
administrative delay; candidate; competition; duty to inform; good faith; moral injury; reasonable time; time limit;
Judgment 2304
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
In its Judgment 2246, the Tribunal ordered the Organization to provide the complainant within 30 days of notification of the judgment with part of the documents supplied to the Tribunal pursuant to Judgment 2192. The complainant points out that the Organization failed to do so within the time limit. "The Tribunal finds that the delay in supplying the documents cannot be attributed solely to the Organization. Prior to the expiry of the prescribed time limit, the latter [...] had written to the complainant asking him to undertake not to divulge the requested documents to third parties. Rather than reply to that letter, the complainant filed an application for execution with the Tribunal, whereas he ought to have shown good faith by replying to the defendant's request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2192, 2246
Keywords:
application for execution; communication to third party; confidential evidence; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; good faith; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; liability; organisation; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2297
96th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[I]f an internal appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal would not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation by that body (see Judgment 775, under 1)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 775
Keywords:
advisory opinion; complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2296
96th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"There can be no doubt of the right of an international organisation to set obligatory rules for the conduct of its staff governing various aspects of their relations with their employer, and that this right includes the right to set reasonable limitation periods during which claims against the employer must be asserted. However, such rules must be published or otherwise made known to all the members of staff concerned in a way which can leave absolutely no doubt as to the nature and reach of the rule, and no doubt that it has been brought to the attention of all those to whom it applies. Even if the [Organization] had succeeded in showing that the tax reimbursement instructions had been given to the staff individually, which it has signally failed to do, it would also have to have shown that all others in like case had been similarly advised. Rules limiting the right to exercise a fundamental condition of employment applicable to all international civil servants are only permissible if they, too, are applicable to all."
Keywords:
enforcement; equal treatment; evidence; judicial review; limits; official; organisation's duties; payment; provision; publication; purport; reasonable time; refund; right; tax; terms of appointment; time limit;
Judgment 2290
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organisation contends that the internal appeal against a decision not to refund medical costs was not lodged in time. In doing so, it takes as the starting point of the time-limit the insurance representative's statement of account rejecting the request for refund. This "plea [...] is unfounded [...] This is because the insurance representative is not an organ of the Organisation, able to take decisions in the meaning of the Office's Service Regulations for Permanent Employees. Decisions concerning insurance benefits are taken by the Office, and more specifically by its President, in accordance with Article 83 of those Regulations."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 83 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
Keywords:
complaint; decision; executive head; health insurance; illness; insurance; internal appeal; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2288
96th Session, 2004
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he fact that the complainant had only a few hours [...] to defend his case [...] constitutes [in itself] a breach of due process".
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; general principle; misconduct; organisation's duties; right; time limit;
Judgment 2282
96th Session, 2004
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[W]hat is at issue here is a plea of prescription on the part of the [organization], which seeks to take the benefit of the two-year limitation period in [a] staff rule. But prescription cannot be invoked by a party which has by its own actions prevented the timely exercise of the creditor's recourses. That is what the pleadings reveal to be the case here."
Keywords:
internal appeal; organisation's duties; refund; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2261
95th Session, 2003
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
The complainant challenges a disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct based on the following three charges: (1) external commercial activities and misrepresentation, (2) disloyalty, and (3) insubordination. In the challenged decision, the Director-General refused to follow the Appeals Committee's recommendation to the effect that the three charges be dismissed and confirmed the dismissal, dealing in detail with the first charge. Although the Tribunal acknowledges that the evidence justifies the Director-General's position, it sets aside the impugned decision because "the Director-General entirely failed to give any reason whatsoever for disagreeing with the Committee's recommendations respecting the second and third charges". The Tribunal adds that "it is not for [...] itself [to] examine the evidence to find justification for the unmotivated decision of the Director-General. [...] Nor should it condone the organization's failure to bring the internal appeal process to a timely and proper conclusion effectively depriving the complainant of both his remedy and his employment for over three years. Accordingly, it will quash the penalty on the first charge only and refer the matter back to the Director-General for a new decision on the penalty after giving the complainant full opportunity to make representations."
Keywords:
concurrent employment; conduct; decision; disciplinary measure; due process; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; fitness for international civil service; insubordination; internal appeal; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; refusal; report; right of appeal; right to reply; separation from service; termination of employment; time limit;
Judgment 2255
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
"The organization did not contest the receivability of the appeals to the appeals board and does not now contest that the complaints were timely filed in accordance with the Tribunal's Statute. Notwithstanding these facts, however, UNESCO now argues that the internal appeals to the Appeals Board were irreceivable and that accordingly, the complaints to the Tribunal are also irreceivable. [...] In Judgment 522, the Tribunal was faced with the identical situation and held: "There can be no doubt that the appropriate, if not the only, time to take the point was before the Appeals Board, since it is the proceedings before the Board that are said to be out of time [...] and not the proceedings before the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal has therefore now to consider whether or not justice requires that the organization should be given a second opportunity to take the point. Three factors ought to be considered. The first is whether the point is a clear and compelling one. The second is whether there is an adequate explanation of the organization's failure to take it. The third is whether the complainant may be prejudiced by the organizations's failure.' " The Tribunal applies, in the present case, the criteria set out in Judgment 552.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 522
Keywords:
case law; complaint; date; injury; internal appeal; new plea; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2250
95th Session, 2003
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
When "the last day of the statutory ninety-day period [is] a holiday, the deadline is extended to the next business day, in line with the Tribunal's ruling in Judgments 306 and 517".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 306, 517
Keywords:
complaint; new time limit; public holiday; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2181
94th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant seeks the validation of her service, for pension purposes, of the period between 13 September 1978 and 14 November 1979. What emerges from Article 23 of the UNJSPF Regulations is that "staff members whose terms of appointment expressly excluded participation in the UNJSPF during the period of service preceding their participation cannot subsequently request the validation of that period of service. that was the case with the complainant [...] she could [...] have made use, at the time [...] of the appeal mechanisms established by the [organisation], to obtain a modification of the terms of her contracts, or to challenge the legality of [the] rule [which provided that staff members engaged under short-term contracts could not participate in the unjspf]. However, since she failed to do so in due time, she is hardly in a position to seek the annulment of her appointments of 1978 and 1979 more than 20 years later. Besides, the nature of those appointments can no longer be challenged. The argument that the complainant did not use the available means of appeal for fear of harming her career cannot be accepted. Moreover, her request for validation of service, which was submitted on 22 December 1999, must be considered to be time-barred."
Keywords:
contract; contributory service; fund membership; internal appeal; late appeal; participation excluded; receivability of the complaint; short-term; terms of appointment; time bar; time limit; unjspf; validation of service;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 | next >
|
