|
|
 |
|
|
New time limit (114,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: New time limit
Total judgments found: 41
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4121
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the alleged failure to implement a decision to grant him three years’ seniority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The decision to promote the complainant was made in 2006. It was at that point in time that time-limits to challenge that decision began to run. The Tribunal’s case law concerning payslips does not entitle a complainant to belatedly challenge a decision out of time if the payslip is simply confirmatory of that decision (see, for example, Judgment 2823, consideration 10). This is what the complainant seeks to do in these proceedings. The complainant has not exhausted internal means of redress in conformity with the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office. Accordingly his complaint to this Tribunal is irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2823
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
Judgment 4118
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Even if the Tribunal were to accept to regard the claims in question as being directed against the [...] decision of 12 July 2007, they would still be irreceivable, since they would be time-barred. Indeed, it has been established that the complainant did not impugn the said decision before the Tribunal within the period of ninety days provided for in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The decision therefore became final, and the complainant could no longer seek to challenge it in his request of 30 April 2015, almost eight years later. As a result, on this issue, the implied decision of the President of the Office to reject that request must be considered as purely confirmatory of the earlier decision of 12 July 2007. As such, it could not set off a new time limit for an appeal by the complainant (see, for example, Judgments 698, consideration 7, 1304, consideration 5, 2449, consideration 9, or 3002, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 698, 1304, 2449, 3002
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; implied decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3296
116th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he has been harassed and that he was appointed only in 2006 to a post whose functions he had been fulfilling since 2001.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; new time limit;
Judgment 3002
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13 to 15
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time [...]. In particular, the fact that a complainant may have discovered a new fact showing that the impugned decision is unlawful only after the expiry of the time limit for submitting an appeal is not in principle a reason to deem his or her complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgments 602, under 3, 1466, under 5 and 6, or 2821, under 8).
It is true that, notwithstanding these rules, the Tribunal's case law allows an employee concerned by an administrative decision which has become final to ask the Administration for review either when some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or else when the employee is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he/she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken (see Judgments 676, under 1, 2203, under 7, or 2722, under 4). However, the fact that, after the expiry of the time limit for appealing against a decision, the Tribunal has rendered a judgment on the lawfulness of a similar decision in another case, does not come within the scope of these exceptions.
In particular, in the instant case, the complainant's argument that the delivery of Judgment 2359 constitutes a new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance, within the meaning of the above-cited case law, is to no avail. In Judgment 676 the Tribunal did accept that the delivery of one of its judgments could be described in these terms and could therefore have the effect of reopening the time limit within which a complainant could lodge an appeal. But the circumstances of the case were very special in that the Tribunal, in previous judgments which it cited in that case, had formulated a rule which had greatly altered the position of certain staff members of an organisation and which, although already applied by the organisation, had until then not been published or communicated to the staff members concerned. No exceptional circumstances of this nature exist in the instant case [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 602, 676, 1466, 2203, 2359, 2722, 2821
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal; late appeal; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; suspension of the execution of a judgment; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2887
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The letter of 19 December 2007 conveyed the Director- General's reasons and his final decision rejecting the complainant's internal appeal. The subsequent letter of 24 January 2008 did not alter that earlier decision and provided no new grounds for it. Accordingly, it did not give rise to new time limits (see Judgment 2011, under 18). As the complaint was not filed within ninety days of the notification of the final decision dated 19 December 2007, as required by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal's Statute, it is irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2011
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2823
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Although the complainant relies on his salary slips, that reliance is misplaced. It is correct, as pointed out in Judgment 1798, that «pay slips are individual decisions that may be challenged before the Tribunal». However, they cannot be challenged as new decisions if they merely confirm a decision that was taken at some earlier time and outside the time limits in which an appeal may be brought."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; decision; individual decision; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
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 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 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 2011
90th Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"According to the case law of the Tribunal, for a decision, taken after an initial decision has been made, to be considered as a new decision (setting off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal) the following conditions are to be met. The new decision must alter the previous decision and not be identical in substance, or at least must provide further justification, and must relate to different issues from the previous one or be based on new grounds (see Judgments 660 [...] and 759 [...]). It must not be a mere confirmation of the original decision (see Judgment 1304 [...]). The fact that discussions take place after a final decision is reached does not mean that the organization has taken a new and final decision. 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 (see Judgment 586 [...]), nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken (see Judgment 1528 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 586, 660, 759, 1304, 1528
Keywords:
case law; condition; confirmatory decision; cumulative decisions; decision; definition; formal requirements; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; same purpose; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1609
82nd Session, 1997
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Although the complainants "corrected their second complaints more than ninety days after getting notice of the decisions, they did not act out of time on that account. They filed in time with the Tribunal complaint forms identifying the decisions they were impugning; their counsel duly applied for extensions of the time limit for correction; and those extensions were duly granted under Article 14 of the Tribunal's Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 14 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; date of notification; decision; iloat statute; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1549
81st Session, 1996
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Although an organisation [may consider] late applicants, it must, whenever a competition is required or desired, announce a new deadline in the same way as it did the vacancy. It will then commit no breach of equality and the competition will be seen as fair."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; delay; due process; equal treatment; internal candidate; new time limit; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; selection procedure; time limit; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1522
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"That he set out his pleas in a brief entered several months [after filing his complaint] after due extension of the time limit granted for the purpose, has no bearing on receivability. As was held in Judgment 1305 [...] under 16 - to which the Tribunal draws the organization's attention - the Registrar may as such take any action he sees fit to safeguard due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1305
Keywords:
case law; complaint; correction of complaint; formal requirements; iloat statute; new time limit; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; submissions; tribunal;
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 1304
76th Session, 1994
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The parties differ as to which decision set off the time limit for internal appeal. The complainant relies on negotiations which took place following an initial decision of the Secretary-General's. Those negotiations, intended to reach a settlement, ended in a second decision of the Secretary-General's to refuse to negotiate any further. The Tribunal holds that the complainant's "further action [...] and any proposals that may have been made to him did not cause the organization at any time to go back on the final decision which it had taken [...] [the subsequent decision] did no more than confirm the earlier one and set off no new time limit for appeal."
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1122
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainants want the Tribunal to set aside all the decisions that applied the "Eurocontrol reduction" to their salaries after 12 November 1987. To avoid the time bar, they rely on the emergence of a new fact, namely Judgment 1012, which quashed the decision to lower pay by 0.7 per cent before that date. "That judgment is final and has the authority of res judicata, including the ruling in it that certain claims are irreceivable. On no account may it be treated as a new fact setting off a new time limit for filing a complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1012
Keywords:
adjustment; complaint; exception; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; res judicata; salary; time bar;
Judgment 1115
71st Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Appeal Board, which had new evidence before it, agreed to reopen the internal proceedings. It then reported that it was unable to make a further recommendation. The Director General took no further express decision. But that "does not preclude the complainant from impugning the implied decision that followed the resumption of hearings by the Board on the strength of new evidence. The outcome of the resumed hearings must be subject to review by the Tribunal even though the implied decision is the same in purport as the original decision."
Keywords:
case reopened; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeals body; new time limit; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 763
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Even if the decisions appointing the complainants were tainted with a formal flaw [...] the decisions were challengeable under the internal appeals procedure and before the Tribunal. The formal flaws the complainants allege did not suspend the time limits".
Keywords:
appointment; flaw; formal flaw; internal appeal; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 752
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Though [the complainant] did rely on facts of which he had been unaware at the outset, there was no new time limit on that account, the time limit in the Service Regulations being objectively determined and unqualified. Any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the stability of the parties' position in law, which is the purpose and indeed the whole point of a time limit. The only exception is where the organisation has misled the complainant or concealed some paper from him so as to do him harm, in breach of the good faith which should govern administration. But the condition is not fulfilled here."
Keywords:
exception; general principle; good faith; internal appeal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 727
58th Session, 1986
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant is mistaken in his contention that the filing of a suit with the municipal courts can have any effect on the receivability of a complaint lodged with the Tribunal. Suing Eurocontrol before the Sittard court did not have the effect of suspending the time limit for filing this complaint."
Keywords:
complaint; effect; inquiry; investigation; municipal court; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
