|
|
 |
|
|
Late filing (748,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Late filing
Total judgments found: 25
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4824
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the case on his allegations of harassment and unequal treatment by the former Registrar of the ICC.
Considerations 5-7
Extract:
The ICC submits that the complaint is irreceivable because it was not filed within 90 days following the notification of the impugned decision, as required by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute […]. The case law further states that such time limits must be strictly adhered to. […] However, as the Tribunal recalled in consideration 2 of Judgment 4059, for example, the case law also recognizes that there are exceptions to the requirement of strict adherence to the applicable time limits in very limited circumstances. The circumstances identified in the case law are: where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time or where the organization, 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; and where 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 he or she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken.
The complainant submits that the strict time limit should not be adhered to in this case because by the time he was notified of the impugned decision, he had already filed his third complaint, so the case was already pending before the Tribunal; that he could not submit a new complaint on the same matter before the Tribunal had ruled on his third complaint; and that once it had delivered Judgment 4271 on his third complaint, he filed his fourth complaint within the following 90-day period, which brings his case within the exceptional circumstances.
The foregoing submissions are rejected. The complainant was notified of the Registrar’s express final decision on his harassment complaint on 23 July 2019, and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute required him to file his complaint with the Tribunal within ninety days following that notification, that is, by 21 October 2019. He filed this complaint more than six months beyond the expiry of the ninety-day time limit. It is clear that the reasons he advances in the foregoing submissions do not fall within any of the “very limited circumstances” recalled above, in which the requirement of strict adherence to the time limit can be waived. […] In this regard, the fact that the complainant had already filed his third complaint impugning what he considered to be an implied decision to reject his harassment claim is irrelevant, given that the third complaint was clearly irreceivable for the reasons explained in Judgment 4271.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4059, 4271
Keywords:
express decision; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; receivability of the complaint;
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.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Although the complainant asserts that he lodged an internal complaint in due time, he provides no evidence of this, and the letter sent to the Secretary-General by the Staff Association on 3 July 2020 cannot be regarded as a complaint within the meaning of the Staff Regulations. Similarly, in view of its relevant case law (see, in particular, Judgments 4253, consideration 6, 3619, considerations 14 and 15, and 3148, consideration 7) and the evidence on file, the Tribunal considers that there is nothing to indicate that, in the present case, a formal promise was made to the complainant by the Organisation to reappoint him at a later date. It follows that the complainant cannot rely on the existence of such a promise to justify his inaction in this regard.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3148, 3619, 4253
Keywords:
late filing; promise;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; promise; time bar;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that the issue of receivability of a complaint can be raised by the Tribunal of its own motion, even if it has not been raised by the Organisation, when irreceivability is clearly apparent from the evidence submitted (see Judgment 3648, consideration 5; see also, to the same effect, Judgments 3139, consideration 3, 2567, consideration 6, 1095, consideration 18, and 60, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 60, 1095, 2567, 3139, 3648
Keywords:
late filing; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4611
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to pay him sums due by way of final emoluments and seeks compensation for the harm which he allegedly as a result of the delay in releasing his pension paperwork to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing;
Judgment 4582
135th Session, 2023
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the reclassification of her employment contracts. She also claims that she was the victim of harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she alleges to have suffered.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4574
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a final decision of the EPO dated 15 October 2021, received by him on the same date, and he filed his complaint with the Tribunal on 14 January 2022.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; summary procedure;
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 4386
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that WHO failed to take a decision on her formal harassment complaint within the sixty-day period provided for in Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; summary procedure;
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 4325
130th Session, 2020
International Cocoa Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision that was taken when the ICCO had not yet recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; late filing; summary procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the Tribunal may hear a complaint only when the international organisation concerned has addressed a declaration recognising the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to the ILO’s Director-General and that declaration has been approved by the ILO’s Governing Body. Although, as stated in consideration 2 above, these requirements have been met in this case, the decision impugned by the complainant was taken when the ICCO had not yet recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, which, moreover, it did not do until well after the expiry of the “ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned” in which complaints must be filed pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; late filing;
Judgment 4272
129th Session, 2020
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision whereby the Director-General of the ITER Organization dismissed him.
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal provides that “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”.
In this case, the ninety-day period provided for in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute ended on Wednesday, 16 October 2019. Accordingly, the complaint filed on 17 October 2019 is time-barred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
late filing;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; summary procedure;
Judgment 4270
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, former officials of the World Food Programme whose employment was terminated as a result of the abolition of their posts, allege that they performed functions of a higher level than those of the posts they occupied, and claim compensation as well as reinstatement.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainants are not impugning an express administrative decision concerning them. Instead, they rely on Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute, which permits a complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal “[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. However, the same paragraph sets forth a deadline for filing a complaint with the Tribunal. Once the sixty-day period allowed for the taking of the decision by the Administration has expired, the complaint must be filed within the following ninety days. As the Tribunal clarified in Judgments 456 and 2901,
“the purpose of [the] provisions [of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute] is twofold. Their first aim is to enable an official to defend [her or his] interests by going to the Tribunal when the Administration has failed to take a decision. Their second aim is to prevent a dispute from dragging on indefinitely, which would undermine the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations. It follows from these twin purposes that, if the Administration fails to take a decision on a claim within sixty days, the person submitting it not only can, but must refer the matter to the Tribunal within the following ninety days, i.e. within 150 days of [her or his] claim being received by the organisation, otherwise his or her complaint will be irreceivable.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 456, 2901
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; late filing;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; direct appeal to tribunal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Judgment 4161
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a settlement agreement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to the complainant’s arguments, the Tribunal’s case law in principle accepts notification by email (see Judgment 2966, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). There is no reason to distinguish between emails sent to the staff member’s work address when he is employed and those sent to his private address once he has left the organisation. The Tribunal further considers that since the complainant had chosen his counsel’s office as his address for notification purposes, which the parties do not dispute, any notification made to that address is valid.
The decision’s notification to both the complainant and his counsel by both email and registered letter, and also the wording of the email, confused the complainant and led to an exchange of emails with the Deputy Director General concerning the start of the time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It is true that the Deputy Director General alerted the complainant to the terms of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal and advised him to consult his counsel about how to calculate the time limit. However, he did not inform him clearly of the date to take into account. The fact that the email stated that it contained only an advance copy of the decision and that the paper copy would be sent by registered post, and the failure of the email to indicate that the time limit would start to run on the date on which the email was received, could have misled the complainant and caused him to believe that the time limit only started to run on the date when the paper copy of the decision was received (for a similar case, see Judgment 3704, considerations 7 and 8). In this case, it is hence the later date that must be considered as the date on which the time limit for filing a complaint to the Tribunal started to run.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2966, 3704
Keywords:
email; late filing; notification; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant’s counsel – whose office the complainant had chosen as his address for notification purposes [...] – was notified of the paper copy of the decision on 14 September 2015. The time limit for filing the complaint hence expired on 13 December 2015. However, as that was a Sunday, the complaint could still be filed the next day (see Judgments 517, 2250, consideration 8, and 3034, consideration 14), as indeed occurred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 517, 2250, 3034
Keywords:
late filing; receivability of the complaint; sunday;
Judgment 3651
122nd Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment upon the expiry of his probationary period.
Considerations 5 and 6
Extract:
In Judgment 3311, considerations 5 and 6, the Tribunal reiterated that the time limits for internal appeal procedures serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way and the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time. The Tribunal relevantly rationalized this approach in the following terms: time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary, otherwise the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions potentially adversely affecting the staff of international organisations would be put at risk. Flexibility about time limits should not intrude into the Tribunal’s decision-making even if it might be thought to be equitable or fair in a particular case to allow some flexibility. To do otherwise would “impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations” (see Judgment 2722, consideration 3). However, there are some exceptions to this general approach, which have been expressed in the Tribunal’s case law.
Additionally, however, Manual paragraph 331.3.31 provides that the Appeals Committee may consider an appeal that has been filed out of time to be receivable if it finds that the failure to abide by the time-limit was for a reason that was outside of the complainant’s control and the length of the delay in filing was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The complainant only states that his appeal was hampered because upon being separated from service, the FAO discontinued his email account and that this action delayed his preparation of the appeal. It is however noted that the FAO re-activated the complainant’s account a week later for thirty days. As the Appeals Committee found, this circumstance did not justify the late filing of the complainant’s appeal some two and a half months after his account was restored. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable, under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, as the complainant has not exhausted the internal means of appeal and has failed to submit his appeal to the Director-General within the prescribed time limit required by Staff Rule 303.1.311. The complaint will therefore be dismissed in its entirety.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2722, 3311
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; 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 3418
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal recognized the moral injury caused to the complainant and determined the amount of compensation.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Before addressing the issues raised by the complainant in her brief, it is necessary to address a challenge by WIPO to the receivability of the complaint. [...] WIPO contends that the complaint is not receivable. It does so on a basis that is raised in other cases in this session and which has been raised in the past. The Tribunal’s response to the argument has been consistent. While the completed complaint form was filed on 13 April 2012, the brief was not filed until 17 July 2012. This occurred in circumstances where the Registrar exercised a power to enable the complainant to “correct” the complaint under Article 6(2) of the Tribunal’s Rules. Article 14 of the Rules also appears to have been engaged. WIPO argues that this is an impermissible use of the power conferred on the Registrar by Article 6 and, in the result, the completed complaint (complaint form and brief) was filed out of time. However, the exercise of the power conferred by Article 6(2) in similar circumstances has been sanctioned by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence (see Judgment 1500, considerations 1 and 2). Whether it is desirable for a Registrar to routinely use the power in this way is another question. WIPO’s challenge to receivability is rejected."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500
Keywords:
correction of complaint; late filing; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3254
116th Session, 2014
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint was considered irreceivable on the ground that it was time-barred.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
