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 3648
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which she participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s objection to the receivability of WIPO’s surrejoinder is unfounded. It should be noted that the date of filing of complaints and briefs with 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, in particular, Judgment 3566, under 3). In this case, the file contains a delivery receipt showing that the surrejoinder was deposited at the International Labour Office, where the Tribunal is based, on 9 February 2015. As the defendant organisation thus sent its surrejoinder on the date at the latest, that is, within the prescribed time limit, which ended that evening, the complainant is wrong to claim that it was filed late.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3566
Keywords:
reply; time bar;
Judgment 3647
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that time limits for filing an internal appeal are not binding on a staff member where, for example, the organisation has misled the staff member, concealed some paper from her or him or has otherwise deprived that person of the possibility of exercising her or his right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see, for example, Judgments 1466, under 5, 2722, under 3, or 3231, under 2). This case law is particularly relevant where a staff member has been misled as to whether she or he has any interest in challenging a decision (see Judgment 2993, under 8), which is exactly what occurred in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 2993, 3231
Keywords:
internal appeal; time bar;
Judgment 3599
121st Session, 2016
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the ICC, impugns the decision of the ICC Registrar to reject his complaint of harassment and discrimination.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"One [...] issue concerns the complainant’s rejoinder and, indirectly, the ICC’s surrejoinder. As noted [...], the complaint was filed on 13 October 2012 though it was subsequently corrected. The corrected complaint was filed on 24 May 2013. The ICC sought an extension of time in which to file its reply. This was granted and allowed the ICC to file its reply by 9 September 2013. It did so on that day. The complainant then had until 7 January 2014 to file his rejoinder. It was not filed until 13 January 2014 even though no extension of time had been granted. In the result, Article 9(2) of the Tribunal’s Rules had the legal effect of closing the pleadings on 7 January 2014. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not have regard to either the complainant’s rejoinder or the ICC’s surrejoinder save to the extent that the surrejoinder points to the fact that Article 9(2) had been engaged with the legal effect just discussed. The legal effect of this provision has been acted upon by the Tribunal on earlier occasions (see Judgments 211, consideration 1, 871, consideration 1, and 1141, considerations 20 and 21). In this matter the pleas are, in any event, sufficiently complete having regard to the complainant’s complaint form and legal brief together with the ICC’s reply."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 9 of the Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 211, 871, 1141
Keywords:
rejoinder; time bar;
Judgment 3581
121st Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"It is not uncommon for a complainant to have been adversely affected by two or more administrative decisions in succession, often months or longer apart, where each decision, not being merely a step in a process, is amenable of both internal appeal and ultimately complaint to the Tribunal. Sometimes complainants elect to challenge the last of the administrative decisions but not earlier administrative decisions. One comparatively recent example of this is found in Judgment 3439."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439
Keywords:
final decision; time bar;
Judgment 3566
121st Session, 2016
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3239.
Considerations 3 and 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that when the time limit for taking a procedural step expires on a Sunday or a public holiday, this time limit is ipso facto extended to the first following working day (see, for example, with regard to Sunday, Judgments 306, 517 and 3034, under 14, and with regard to a public holiday, Judgments 890, under 4, and 2250, under 8).
As regards the submission of complaints and briefs to the Tribunal itself, for which the date of filing is the date on which they are sent and not the date on which they are received by the Registry, this case law is based on the fact that the postal services of most States do not usually operate on Sundays and public holidays.
However, in view of the reason underpinning it, this solution is not applicable where the deadline for submitting a complaint or a brief expires, as in the present case, on a Saturday. On the contrary, it is ordinarily the rule in most States that postal services operate on this day of the week, albeit under particular conditions.
It is true that the Tribunal has ruled, with respect to an internal appeal filed by an official, that a time limit expiring on a Saturday was automatically extended to the following Monday if Saturday was a non-working day in the organisation concerned (see Judgment 2831, under 3). However, this solution may be explained by the circumstance that appeals of this type are usually deposited with the administrative services of organisations and forwarded to the competent body through the internal mail, so that the closure of these services on non-working days justifies such an extension. As it is usual practice to file submissions with the Tribunal by post, there is no reason to transpose this particular precedent to the filing of complaints or briefs with the Tribunal, since this filing is not hindered by a deadline falling on a Saturday, even if Saturday is not a working day in the organisation concerned."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 306, 517, 890, 2250, 2831, 3034
Keywords:
time bar;
Judgment 3559
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is time-barred and therefore clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; summary procedure; time bar;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"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): 2250, 3393, 3467
Keywords:
time bar;
Judgment 3556
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is out of time, it is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; summary procedure; time bar;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The legal effect of a request by the Registrar under Article 6(2) of the Tribunal’s Rules is to extend the period in which a complainant can correct a complaint (which is only a complaint in form but not in substance) that, though filed in time, did not comply with the Tribunal’s Rules and, in particular, Article 6(1). Unless the complaint is corrected (that is, rendered conformable with the Rules) within the extended period or any further extended period notified by the Registrar, then it remains deficient. The unremedied deficiency existing at the time of filing means that the complaint form filed was not a complaint for the purposes of Article 6 of the Rules. The legal consequence of this is that the complaint form was not a complaint at the time of filing, for the purposes of Article VII(2) of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Thus, it is obvious that the complaint is out of time. It has not been filed within the time limits provided for in the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules. It is therefore clearly irreceivable and must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules."
Keywords:
correction of complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3555
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; summary procedure; time bar;
Judgment 3553
120th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaints are time-barred and therefore clearly irreceivable, they are summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; joinder; summary procedure; time bar;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"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. 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 Judgment 2250, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2250
Keywords:
time bar;
Judgment 3545
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is time-barred and therefore irreceivable, it is dismissed.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that, to be receivable, a complaint must have been filed within 90 days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned. 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 that time limit 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 (see Judgments 3393, under 1, 3304, under 2, and 3467, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3304, 3393, 3647
Keywords:
time bar;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; time bar;
Judgment 3482
120th Session, 2015
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract with immediate effect during his trial period.
Considerations 4, 5 and 6
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has often had occasion to state, time limits are binding and an objective matter of fact. The Tribunal therefore 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. However, an exception to this rule will be made where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time, or where the organisation has misled the complainant, concealed some paper from him or her or has otherwise deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see, in particular, Judgments 1466, under 5, and 2722, under 3).
In this instance, Article 4(12) of Annex IV to the CTA Staff Regulations provides that “[i]n the event that conciliation has failed, the case may be submitted within three months to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation”.
The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the rules governing the receivability of complaints before the Tribunal are established exclusively by its own Statute. Consequently it was unlawful to set a three-month time limit in the aforementioned Staff Regulations in place of the 90 days prescribed in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. As the complainant was misled by the incorrect information regarding the time limit contained in the CTA Staff Regulations and he filed his complaint within the three-month time limit stipulated in the above-mentioned paragraph 12, his complaint must be deemed receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722
Keywords:
time bar;
Judgment 3467
119th Session, 2015
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is out of time and therefore clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; summary procedure; time bar;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, to be receivable, a complaint must have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned. 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 a time bar (see Judgment 2821, under 8, and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2821
Keywords:
time bar;
Judgment 3445
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaints are dismissed as time-barred and irreceivable.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that as the complaints were filed with the Tribunal beyond the ninety-day time limit provided in Article VII of the Statute, the complaints are time-barred and irreceivable."
Keywords:
late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3439
119th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision to terminate his appointment after the abolition of his post, as the Tribunal found that, due to the Organisation's failings, he had lost a valuable opportunity to be reassigned to another post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently said that time limits serve the purpose of, amongst other things, creating finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. When an applicable time limit to challenge a decision has passed, the organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision is fully and legally effective. So it is in this case. To the extent that the complainant seeks to challenge the decision to abolish his post in these proceedings and his internal appeal was time-barred, he has thus not exhausted internal remedies. His complaint, in this respect, is irreceivable."
Keywords:
delay; internal appeal; time bar;
Judgment 3409
119th Session, 2015
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal awarded the complainants material and moral damages stemming from IFAD's unlawful decisions and violation of its duty of care.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that the complainants’ claims against the abolition of their posts are irreceivable, in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, for failure to exhaust all internal means of redress. While the complainants submit that they were only later aware of the full damage caused to them by the abolition of their posts, they each should have filed an internal appeal (as IFAD did not authorize them to challenge the issue directly before the Tribunal) challenging the 9 August 2012 decisions insofar as the decisions declared their requests for facilitation concerning the abolition of their posts to be time-barred."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; time bar;
Consideration 9
Extract:
Although the Tribunal, as in Judgment 3172, will not rule on the lawfulness of the abolition decisions, it will consider the overall situation regarding the Fund’s treatment of the complainants, including the actions leading up to the abolition of their posts, as well as the consequent effects. Considering this, the main issues to be addressed regard the non-renewal of the complainants’ contracts, the subsequent reassignment efforts, and the extent to which IFAD fulfilled its duty of care and showed respect for the dignity of the complainants.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3172
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; time bar;
Judgment 3406
119th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint (relating to dependant child allowance) for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466, 2722 and 2821, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not rule on the lawfulness of a decision which has become final, 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 not have discovered the irregularity on which he or she purports to rely until after the expiry of the time limit is not in principle a reason to deem his or her complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgments 602, under 3, and 1466, under 5 and 6).
It is true that the Tribunal’s case law as set forth in Judgments 1466, 2722 and 2821 allows exceptions to this rule 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 so as to do him or her harm, 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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2722, 2821
Keywords:
internal appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3405
119th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge the implied decision to reject their claims relating to tax relief for dependant children (for irreceivability).
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; family allowance; joinder; time bar; time limit;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466, 2722 and 2821, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not rule on the lawfulness of a decision which has become final, 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 not have discovered the irregularity on which he or she purports to rely until after the expiry of the time limit is not in principle a reason to deem his or her complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgments 602, under 3, and 1466, under 5 and 6).
It is true that the Tribunal’s case law as set forth in Judgments 1466, 2722 and 2821 allows exceptions to this rule 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 so as to do him or her harm, 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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2722, 2821
Keywords:
internal appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3401
119th Session, 2015
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant's claim for harassment was irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
agreed termination; complaint dismissed; time bar;
Judgment 3393
118th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint is summarily dismissed as filed out of time.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; summary procedure; time bar;
Judgment 3374
118th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal set aside for procedural flaw the impugned decision rejecting the complainant’s request for the reclassification of his post.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"In view of the setting aside of the impugned decision, the Director-General must be deemed to have failed to take a decision within the time limit [...]. It must therefore be concluded [...] that the [...] recommendation becomes effective ipso jure. The complainant must therefore be reclassified retroactively [...]."
Keywords:
decision quashed; time bar;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
