Time bar (117,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Time bar
Total judgments found: 223
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
Judgment 4899
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests modifications made to the healthcare insurance contribution.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; general decision; time bar;
Judgment 4896
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2018.
Considerations 3 and 5
Extract:
According to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”.
The Tribunal has consistently held that the period of time set forth by the Statute begins to run on the day following the date of notification of the impugned decision, but where the ninetieth day falls on a public holiday, the period is extended until the next business day (see, for example, Judgments 3801, consideration 3, 3708, consideration 3, 3630, consideration 3, or 2250, consideration 8).
[...]
The period provided for in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute begins to run, as already stated, on the day following the date of notification of the impugned decision, meaning that its point of commencement is taken as the beginning of that day. The first day to be counted is therefore the day immediately following the day of notification – namely, in the present case, 19 December 2019 – and not the day after that (see, in particular, Judgments 4441, considerations 1 and 3, 4272, considerations 2 and 4, 3973, considerations 2 and 4, 3801, considerations 2 and 4, 3708, considerations 2 and 4, or 3630, considerations 2 and 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2250, 3630, 3630, 3708, 3708, 3801, 3801, 3973, 4272, 4441
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, 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 (see, for example, Judgments 4374, consideration 7, 4160, consideration 9, 3828, consideration 7, 3406, consideration 12, or3002, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3002, 3406, 3828, 4160, 4374
Keywords:
late appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4830
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied decision dismissing his request for his administrative situation to be regularised, the decision ordering his transfer, the decision to award him a special post allowance in that it excluded a certain period and the amount in question was insufficient, and the decision announcing his promotion in that it was not retroactive and did not place him on step 7 of grade G.4.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that, in his letter of 12 December 2018 addressed to the Secretary-General, the complainant based his claims on administrative decisions that he did not challenge within the period prescribed by [...] Staff Rule 11.1.2. It is clear from the evidence that the complainant did not submit a request for reconsideration in respect of his job description or his transfer when he was transferred on 1 January 2014 [...]. Neither did he submit a request for reconsideration in respect of the payslips which he subsequently received every month.
The Tribunal cannot accept the complainant’s argument that his request of 12 December 2018 was not time-barred because its purpose was to obtain compensation for the whole of the injury he allegedly suffered for the period from 1 January 2013 to 1 March 2020, and that actions of this type are not, as such, subject to any particular time limit.
The Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the case contrived, because, in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of such decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their setting aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit. Endorsing the complainant’s argument would have the effect of authorising an organisation’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for the injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for time bars (see, for example, Judgments 4742, consideration 9, and 4655, consideration 15).
It follows that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent that it concerns the implied decision dismissing his request of 12 December 2018 for his administrative situation to be regularised, because he failed to exhaust the internal means of redress as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4655, 4742
Keywords:
compensation; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4821
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who in 2019 claimed an allowance which he could have claimed as early as 2001, challenges the Organisation’s decision to pay the allowance with effect from only five years prior to the date of his claim.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
allowance; complaint allowed; retroactivity; time bar;
Judgment 4759
137th Session, 2024
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; promise; time bar;
Judgment 4758
137th Session, 2024
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Secretary-General to end her employment and the breach of a promise of employment allegedly made to her.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; promise; time bar;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”.
The Tribunal notes that the impugned decision of 14 June 2021 rejected an internal complaint lodged by the complainant even though she had not been a member of the Organisation’s staff since 27 December 2020 and therefore no longer had access to the means of internal redress (see Judgment 4582, consideration 4). Given that the complaint against that decision was dated 15 June 2022, it was not filed with the Tribunal within the period prescribed therefor.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4582
Keywords:
late filing; time bar;
Judgment 4757
137th Session, 2024
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and the breach of a promise to employ him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”.
The Tribunal notes that the impugned decision of 28 June 2021 rejected an internal complaint lodged by the complainant even though he had not been a member of the Organisation’s staff since 31 December 2020 and therefore no longer had access to the means of internal redress (see Judgment 4582, consideration 4). Given that the complaint against that decision was dated 15 June 2022, it was not filed with the Tribunal within the period prescribed therefor.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4582
Keywords:
time bar;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; promise; time bar;
Judgment 4746
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following a preliminary assessment and without conducting an investigation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; opening of an investigation; organisation's duties; parallel proceedings; time bar;
Judgment 4655
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions rejecting their requests for redefinition of their employment relationships.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he complainants maintain [...] that the requests for redefinition of their employment relationships cannot be considered as time-barred because they are “actions involving compensation”, their sole purpose being “to obtain redress for the injury caused by the misuse of precarious contracts”, and that actions of this type are not, as such, subject to a time limit specified in WIPO’s rules. However, the Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the cases contrived, because in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of those decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their being set aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit. The complainants’ reference to the case law on which they consider they can base this argument, which relates to different situations, is irrelevant in the present case. Furthermore, endorsing this argument – which would, once again, involve departing from the approach taken in [...] Judgments 4159 and 4160 – would have the effect of authorising the Organization’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for time bars (see, for example, Judgment 3406, consideration 12, and the other judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3406, 4159, 4160
Keywords:
compensation; conversion of contract; injury; late appeal; redefinition of contract; time bar;
Judgment 4654
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his employment contract.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant maintains that the request for redefinition of his employment relationship cannot be considered as time-barred because it is “an action involving compensation”, its sole purpose being “to obtain redress for the injury caused” by “the fault committed by the Organization in applying the rules governing insecure and non-standard contracts in an abusive, aberrant manner” and that actions of this type are not, as such, subject to a time limit specified in WIPO’s rules. However, the Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the case contrived, because in a dispute involving a challenge to an individual decision, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of that decision could only be granted as a consequence of it being set aside, which presupposes by definition that it has been challenged within the applicable time limit. Furthermore, endorsing this argument – which would, once again, involve departing from the approach taken in aforementioned Judgments 4159 and 4160 – would have the effect of authorising the Organization’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in due time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for a time bar (see, for example, Judgment 3406, consideration 12, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3406, 4159, 4160
Keywords:
conversion of contract; late appeal; redefinition of contract; time bar;
Judgment 4441
132nd Session, 2021
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision dated 5 May 2020 that he received on 7 May 2020, and he filed his complaint with the Tribunal on 6 August 2020.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; summary procedure; time bar;
Judgment 4426
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to retroactively promote her while she was on sick leave.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; promotion; sick leave; time bar;
Consideration 9
Extract:
Consistent principle has it that a complainant must comply with the time limits and the procedures, as set out in the organisation’s internal rules and regulations and that, where a complainant does not comply with prescribed time limits for lodging a request for review, a grievance and/or an appeal, the complaint may be irreceivable for the complainant’s failure to exhaust all internal means of redress in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute (see, for example, Judgments 4103, consideration 1, and 4221, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4103, 4221
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; time bar;
Judgment 4402
132nd Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his position.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
Access to the Tribunal is generally conditioned by Article VII of its Statute, which requires that a complainant exhaust internal means of redress. It is also conditioned by the need for a complainant to raise a case of non-observance of the terms of appointment or non-observance of applicable Staff Regulations (see Article II of the Statute). The complainant does not point to any provision in IFAD’s Staff Rules or any other normative legal document applicable at the time he made his request on 27 July 2017 expressly conferring on an individual staff member a right to make such a request directly to the Director HRD and thereby seek to have her or his position reclassified or expressly creating any corresponding duty on the organisation to consider and determine such a request.
The complainant seeks to avoid the consequences of there being no express right as just discussed by arguing that the reorganisation of LEG in June 2015 required the Director HRD to ensure all positions were correctly classified and, if they had not been, as argued by the complainant in his brief, the Director HRD “had an ongoing obligation to do so whenever the matter was brought to his attention”. Even accepting, for present purposes, that there had been an obligation during the reorganisation to ensure positions were correctly classified, it is a large step to say that the obligation was an ongoing one, enlivened at any time by an individual who had been involved in the reorganisation requesting reclassification by correspondence directly with the Director HRD. As the Director HRD rightly pointed out in his email of 20 October 2017, any failure to address correctly the complainant’s classification during the reorganisation in 2015 should have been challenged at the time, as should have decisions made in 2012-2013 which may have borne upon his classification.
The complainant refers to Judgment 3861 in support of a proposition that an organisation must ensure staff are properly compensated and accordingly must make sure positions are properly graded. But that judgment was far more narrowly focused. The Tribunal said “the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4)”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2768, 3861
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; post classification; reorganisation; time bar;
Judgment 4374
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions to abolish their posts and terminate their appointments.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The question of whether a judgment of the Tribunal may be considered as a new fact providing an exception to the time limits for lodging an appeal was dealt with in Judgment 3002. In particular, the Tribunal found in considerations 13 to 15 of that judgment that:
“13. [T]ime 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. 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).
14. 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.
15. 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 where the criticism expressed in Judgment 2359 of the conditions set by the Office for the recognition of a dependent child – which moreover confirmed the soundness of the complainant’s own criticism in this respect – cannot be regarded as unforeseeable.”
The Tribunal underlines that established time limits, which render a decision immune from challenge if they are not observed, are fundamental to the stability of the legal relations between the parties and, accordingly, to the entire legal system of international organizations. Without time limits, there can be no stability, thus undermining the principle of legal certainty of the entire system (see, for example, Judgments 3704, consideration 3, 3795, consideration 4, and 4184, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3002, 3704, 3795, 4184
Keywords:
late appeal; new fact; time bar;
Judgment 4354
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the implied rejection of their request to correct and update judicial salary and pension.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; time bar;
Judgment 4334
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implicit decision rejecting her appeal against the decision to modify her terms of assignment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; late filing; time bar;
Judgment 4253
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 12
Extract:
A staff member is entitled to have a regular appraisal. In the present case, this right, enshrined in Article 6.7 of the Staff Regulations, has been seriously violated for many years. The fact that the complainant did not complain about it before 2014 is not relevant, since he was not time-barred from challenging that irregularity when he filed his grievance. Similarly, the Tribunal will not take into account the fact that the absence of appraisals may not have had any impact on his career. Appraisals are not only intended to allow for promotion. They play an important role throughout a staff member’s career, including by allowing staff members to know how their superiors evaluate their work and to challenge that evaluation or improve their performance.
Keywords:
performance evaluation; time bar;
Judgment 4210
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss as irreceivable his claim for compensation for injury or illness attributable to service.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; service-incurred; time bar;
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 4101
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a complainant must not only have exhausted all internal remedies within his organization but also have duly complied with the rules governing the internal appeal procedure. Thus, if the internal appeal was irreceivable under those rules, the complaint filed with the Tribunal will also be irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal (see Judgment 1244, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1244
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has observed on various occasions, time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions. To allow otherwise would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations (see Judgments 3704, considerations 2 and 3, and 3923, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3704, 3923
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; time bar;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
