|
|
 |
|
|
Late appeal (695,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Late appeal
Total judgments found: 62
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
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.
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 7
Extract:
According to firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the fact that an internal appeal is lodged by a complainant out of time renders her or his complaint irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available to staff members of the organisation, which cannot be deemed to be exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4655, consideration 20, 4160, consideration 13, and 4159, consideration 11, as well as, for example, Judgments 2888, consideration 9, 2326, consideration 6, and 2010, consideration 8).
However, there are exceptions to this general principle laid down in the Tribunal’s case law. One of them is the case where the defendant organisation misled the complainant, depriving him of the possibility of exercising his right of appeal in violation of the principle of good faith (see, for example, Judgments 4184, consideration 4, 3704, considerations 2 and 3, 2722, consideration 3, and Judgment 3311, considerations 5 and 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2010, 2326, 2722, 2888, 3311, 3704, 4159, 4160, 4184, 4655
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he promotion decision of 6 March 2020 was taken in the discrete context of a new job opening for which an internal competition was held, to which the complainant voluntarily applied. It follows that an assessment of the alleged unlawfulness of such a promotion – and the determination of the step involved – cannot be based on the unlawfulness of other earlier decisions – which, moreover, were not challenged in due time – but only on any unlawfulness in the promotion decision itself or in the procedure followed. It must be noted that the complainant does not allege any unlawfulness of that kind.
Keywords:
late appeal; promotion; selection procedure;
Judgment 4811
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, widow and successor of a former consultant for the FAO, who died while on official travel on the Organization’s behalf, impugns the Director-General’s decision dismissing her internal appeal against the decision informing her that the incident leading to her husband’s death had not been recognised as attributable to the performance of official duties and that she therefore was not entitled to claim compensation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal entirely agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Appeals Committee, which the Director-General followed in the impugned decision, and recalls that time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary to ensure the stability of the parties’ legal relations (see, for example, Judgments 4673, consideration 13, 4374, consideration 8, 4184, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
According to the Tribunal’s firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the fact that an appeal lodged by a complainant was out of time renders her or his complaint irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress, which cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4655, consideration 20, 4160, consideration 13, and 4159, consideration 11, as well as, for example, Judgments 2888, consideration 9, 2326, consideration 6, and 2010, consideration 8). As the complainant’s appeal of 23 July 2021 was lodged late, the present complaint is clearly irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2010, 2326, 2888, 4159, 4160, 4184, 4374, 4655, 4673
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4809
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.
Consideration 3
Extract:
It is true that the contracts in question did not themselves set any time limit for submitting an appeal in their connection. However, under the Tribunal’s case law, since the complainant intended to obtain recognition as an official, he ought to have lodged his grievance within the time limit applicable to any ILO official under Article 13.2(1) of the Staff Regulations, that is within six months of the treatment complained of (see Judgments 2888, consideration 8, 2838, considerations 4 to 6, and 2708, considerations 6 to 8). Admittedly, it would in practice have been awkward for the complainant to dispute the lawfulness of the initial contracts in question because he might have jeopardised further employment by the Organization and it would have been difficult for him to prove at the outset that, as he submits, he was engaged in ongoing duties. But these considerations do not hold good for subsequent contracts, and they ought to have been challenged at the latest within six months of their respective expiry dates. As has been said, the complainant – who had never requested that his employment relationship be redefined before it was ended – did not submit his grievance until 14 February 2007. The evidence shows that, at that date, the only contracts that could still be challenged within the prescribed time limit were an external collaboration contract for DIALOGUE between 6 November and 15 December 2006 and the last contract of this type, granted to the complainant at the end of the preceding contract for employment in the same department and which ended on 8 January 2007.
Pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the fact that the complainant’s grievance was out of time insofar as it sought the redefinition of all the other contracts renders his complaint irreceivable to the same extent for failure to exhaust the applicable internal means of redress, since they cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see, for example, Judgments 4655, consideration 20, 4159, consideration 11, and 2888, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2708, 2838, 2888, 4159, 4655
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4742
137th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for the unfair treatment she considers she has suffered because her applications for several positions were rejected and she was not able to take part in training.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
Staff Regulation R VI 1.05 provides that appeals must be lodged within 60 days of notification of the disputed decision. The decisions on which the complainant’s claim for moral damages rests were therefore not submitted for an internal appeal within the time limit prescribed in the Staff Regulations.
The Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised the importance of the strict observance of applicable time limits when challenging an administrative decision. In Judgment 4673, consideration 12, it pointed out that a complaint will not be receivable if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits (see also, in this regard, Judgment 4426, consideration 9, and Judgment 3758, considerations 10 and 11). According to the Tribunal’s firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the fact that an appeal lodged by a complainant was out of time renders her or his complaint irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available to staff members of the organisation, which cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4655, consideration 20, and 4517, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3758, 4426, 4517, 4655, 4673
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal cannot accept the complainant’s argument that, in the present case, her complaint is limited to the Organisation’s “decision” to dismiss her claim for compensation for the moral injury it had caused her, pointing to the fact that she is not requesting that each of these individual selection decisions be set aside, which would render her claim receivable. The Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the case contrived, because, as it recalled in Judgment 4655, consideration 15, 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 the 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 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 time bars (see, for example, Judgment 3406, consideration 12, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3406, 4655
Keywords:
compensation; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4678
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to extend his fixed-term contract due to unsatisfactory performance and to withhold his within-grade salary increment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
In the ordinary course, sick leave is not an exceptional circumstance in and of itself. The complainant should have provided the JAB with a reasonable explanation as to why his sick leave prevented him from requesting a review in a timely manner, and he did not. In these circumstances, the internal appeal was properly considered irreceivable.
Keywords:
exception; late appeal; sick leave;
Judgment 4676
136th Session, 2023
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges EMBL’s refusal to guarantee that the survivor’s pension to which his wife will be entitled at the time of his death will be at least 35 per cent of his last salary; to award him a children’s allowance for each of his wife’s three children from her previous marriages; and to verify that his current pension was properly calculated.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal has often stated that time limits are binding and an objective matter of fact, and that it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, since any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations that is the very justification for a time bar (see Judgment 3482, consideration 4). And pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, a complaint before the latter shall not be receivable unless the person concerned has exhausted the means of redress that are open to her or him under the applicable staff regulations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3482
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; time limit;
Judgment 4673
136th Session, 2023
The Pacific Community
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment during her extended probation period.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant cannot validly claim that, in the circumstances of the case, she was misled by the Organisation with regard to exercising her right of appeal. Although the Tribunal’s case law recognises that there are some exceptions to the general principle that the time limits set for internal appeal procedures must be strictly observed where an organisation has misled a staff member, depriving her or him of the possibility of exercising a right of appeal in violation of the principle of good faith (see [...] Judgment 4184, consideration 4), those exceptions are not applicable in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4184
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; time limit;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised the importance of the strict observance of applicable time limits when challenging an administrative decision. In Judgment 4103, consideration 1, the Tribunal stated the following in this regard:
“The complaint is irreceivable as the complainant failed to exhaust all internal means of redress in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The complainant’s grievance was time-barred when he submitted it [...] on 23 December 2014. Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint will not be receivable unless the impugned decision is a final decision and the complainant has exhausted all the internal means of redress. This means that a complaint will not be receivable if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits. As the Tribunal has consistently stated, the strict adherence to time limits is essential to have 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 (see Judgment 3758, under 10 and 11, and the case law cited therein).”
(See also Judgment 4426, consideration 9, in this regard.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3758, 4103, 4426
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 13
Extract:
As the Tribunal also recalled in Judgment 4184, consideration 4, the time limits for internal appeal procedures and the time limits in the Tribunal’s Statute serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way and that the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time (see also, to the same effect, Judgment 3704, considerations 2 and 3). The rationale for this principle is that time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary to ensure the stability of the parties’ legal relations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3704, 4184
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
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 10
Extract:
[T]he case law [...] established by Judgments 4159 and 4160 is fully applicable to the cases of the complainants in the present proceedings, and accordingly the Organization’s objection to the receivability of all the complaints, based on the fact that the complainants’ internal appeals were time-barred, is well founded.
With regard to the eight complainants who were granted temporary contracts at the end of periods when they were employed under short-term contracts, it is clear that they did not challenge the decisions whereby they were granted these temporary contracts within the eight-week period available to them for this purpose under Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(1), in the version applicable at the time. Moreover, examination of these contracts shows that the complainants explicitly stated when signing them that they “accept[ed] without reservation the temporary appointment[s] offered to [them]”. The requests for redefinition of their employment relationships that they subsequently submitted were therefore time-barred.
Moreover, the Tribunal notes that the approach adopted in Judgments 4159 and 4160, concerning the consequences of a failure to challenge within the applicable time limit a decision awarding a temporary employment contract at the end of a period of employment under short-term contracts, must apply a fortiori to a decision awarding a fixed-term contract at that point. The grant to some staff members, at the end of a such a period of employment, of this type of contract, which is still more fundamentally different in nature from a short-term contract, constituted a fortiori a modification of the legal relationships between the parties as well as regularising the contractual situation of the staff members in question.
However, the three complainants who were directly awarded fixed-term contracts on the expiry of renewals of their short-term contracts failed to challenge the decisions granting them these contracts within the applicable time limit for appeal and also accepted their new contracts without reservation. Consequently, they were not entitled to seek a redefinition of their employment relationships at a later date.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4159, 4160
Keywords:
conversion of contract; fixed-term; late appeal; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that, while the various complainants requested that the contractual redefinition apply not only to the period during which they were employed under short-term contracts but also, subsidiarily, to the subsequent period, their claims on this point are also barred by this case law. Firstly, the periods during which the complainants were employed under temporary appointments or fixed-term contracts did not in themselves necessitate a redefinition, since the complainants were lawfully employed during those periods. Secondly, since the requests for redefinition of their initial employment relationships in the form of short-term contracts are irreceivable, those requests, even if well-founded, could not in any event give rise to an entitlement to redefinition concerning the subsequent period.
Keywords:
conversion of contract; late appeal; redefinition of contract; short-term;
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;
Consideration 20
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the fact that the appeals lodged by the complainants were out of time renders their complaints irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available to staff members of the Organization, which cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4160, consideration 13, and 4159, consideration 11, as well as, for example, Judgments 2888, consideration 9, 2326, consideration 6, and 2010, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2010, 2326, 2888, 4159, 4160
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
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;
Consideration 13
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s firm precedent based on the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of its Statute, the fact that the complainant’s appeal was lodged out of time renders the claim in question irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available to the Organization’s staff members, which cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see Judgments 4160, consideration 13, and 4159, consideration 11, as well as, for example, Judgments 2888, consideration 9, 2326, consideration 6, and 2010, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2010, 2326, 2888, 4159, 4160
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; late appeal;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he case law thus established by Judgments 4159 and 4160 is fully applicable to the case of the complainant in the present proceedings, [...].
Indeed, it is clear that the complainant did not challenge, within the eight-week period available to him for this purpose under Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(1), in the version applicable at the time, the decision of 19 November 2012 whereby he was granted the temporary appointment which he held from that date. Moreover, examination of that contract shows that the complainant signed it on 23 November 2012, explicitly stating that he “accept[ed] without reservation the temporary appointment offered to [him]”. The request for redefinition of his employment relationship that he subsequently submitted on 16 September 2016 with the aim of having his career reconstructed was therefore time-barred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4159, 4160
Keywords:
conversion of contract; late appeal; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; late appeal; non-renewal of contract; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that, while the complainant requested that the contractual redefinition apply not only to the period during which he was employed under short-term contracts but also, subsidiarily, to the subsequent period, his claims on this point must also fail in light of this case law. Firstly, the period during which the complainant was employed under a temporary appointment did not in itself necessitate a redefinition, since he was lawfully employed during that period. Secondly, since the request for redefinition of his initial employment relationship in the form of short-term contracts is irreceivable, that request, even if well founded, could not in any event give rise to an entitlement to redefinition concerning the subsequent period.
Keywords:
conversion of contract; late appeal; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Judgment 4590
135th Session, 2023
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him compensation under “the grandfathering rules” for the loss of home leave entitlements that he enjoyed before he was transferred from the World Health Organization to the Global Fund.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal […] stated that its case law concerning payslips did not entitle a complainant to belatedly challenge a decision out of time if the payslip was simply confirmatory of that decision [...].
Keywords:
late appeal; payslip;
Judgment 4573
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject as time-barred his request for review contesting deductions made from his remuneration in February 2013 and November 2014 for, respectively, pension contributions and the dependents and education allowances.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal and in accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, the complaint is irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress available to staff members of the Organisation, which cannot be deemed to have been exhausted unless recourse has been had to them in compliance with the formal requirements and within the prescribed time limit (see, for example, Judgments 4160, consideration 13, 4103, consideration 1, 4101, consideration 3, 2888, consideration 9, as well as Judgments 2010, 2326 and 2708 referred to therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2888, 4101, 4103, 4160
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; summary procedure;
Judgment 4561
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject as time-barred his appeal against the President’s refusal to organise a strike ballot in accordance with the applicable rules.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[The organization] is entitled to rely upon a failure to comply with time limits for internal review as a basis for challenging, ultimately, the receivability of a complaint before the Tribunal, as it has done in this case (see, for example, Judgment 4369, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4369
Keywords:
late appeal;
Judgment 4560
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions (i) to recover the amounts paid to him for Long-Term Care insurance benefits in respect of his ex-wife and (ii) to demand the immediate repayment of the outstanding balance of a home loan he took out from the EPO in 2006.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It was in the [August] letter that the Director, HR Operations, informed the complainant of the decision that he should repay the outstanding balance on his home loan. The [December] letter, which the complainant contested by way of request for review […], merely confirmed that decision. It was not a new decision on the matter and, therefore, did not trigger a new time limit within which the complainant was required to submit a request for review, pursuant to Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations (see Judgment 4116, considerations 4 and 5). As he did not submit his request for the review of the [August] decision that required him to repay the outstanding balance on his home loan within the time limit stipulated in Article 109(2) of the Service Regulations, he failed to exhaust the internal means of redress that were available to him. His complaint is therefore also irreceivable, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, to the extent that he seeks to contest the decision to repay his home loan.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4116
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; late appeal; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 4542
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation during her probationary period.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s internal appeal was receivable. Contrary to what IFAD submits, the complaint before the Tribunal is therefore receivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal to the extent that it seeks the setting aside of the decision of 20 February 2017. In addition, the decision of 20 February 2017 is tainted by an error of law in that it rejected the complainant’s appeal as time-barred.
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4499
134th Session, 2022
Customs Co-operation Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following the abolition of her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; late appeal;
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.
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;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The case law recognizes that, in very limited circumstances, an exception may be made to the requirement of strict adherence to the relevant time limits. These include instances in which some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or where the staff member concerned by that decision is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which she or he was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken (see, for example, Judgments 3903, consideration 6, and 4118, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3903, 4118
Keywords:
exception; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal;
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 keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal;
Judgment 4340
131st Session, 2021
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision not to provide her with a copy of the decision taken on her request for review previously sent to her by e-mail.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; notification by email;
Judgment 4339
131st Session, 2021
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the change of her nationality for administrative purposes.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late appeal; nationality;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
