Time limit (108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 433, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 781,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Time limit
Total judgments found: 335
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
Judgment 473
47th Session, 1982
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The complainant filed his complaint within the time limit set in Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal. The fact that the Registrar invited him to supplement his complaint in accordance with Article 7 of the Rules of Court has no bearing on the question of receivability. In any event the complaint was brought into conformity with the Rules within the one-month time limit set in Article 7."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 7 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 458
46th Session, 1981
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The complainant sought the Director-General's approval, required under the material provisions, for him to to appeal directly to the Tribunal. Having received no reply within the time limit he had given, the complainant considered that the organization's silence was to be taken as consent. But the Director-General was not bound to answer the complainant by the deadline he had arbitrarily set. Furthermore, he did not ask for the Director-General's agreement until after the expiry of the time limit for addressing an appeal: he should therefore have expected a refusal. The complaint is clearly irreceivable.
Keywords:
acceptance; direct appeal to tribunal; executive head; failure to answer claim; provision; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 456
46th Session, 1981
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
The ninety-day time limit set in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal will run from the date of expiry of the sixty-day time limit set in paragraph 3. The text of Article VII, paragraph 3, expressly provides for the addition of the two time limits and thus renders irreceivable any complaint filed after the expiry of the 150 days.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 451
46th Session, 1981
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The rule that a complaint shall be receivable only if the internal means of redress have been exhausted is not a hard and fast one even though the Statute does not allow any derogation from it. If a complainant does all in her power to procure a decision and if nevertheless the internal appeals body either by its statements or by its conduct evinces an intention not to give a decision within a reasonable period, justice requires that an exception should be made. [...] When the delay is inordinate and inexcusable, such an intention can be inferred."
Keywords:
administrative delay; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 432
45th Session, 1980
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The Tribunal holds the medical report to be the final decision. In it the reasons for the decision are stated in clear and unambiguous terms. The word "decision" occurs in the text. The complaint is time-barred and irreceivable.
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; medical opinion; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 430
45th Session, 1980
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complaint was time-barred and thus irreceivable. The complainant's letter requesting an explanation for the non-confirmation of his appointment cannot be regarded as an application for further consideration on which the organisation should have acted. Consequently, the letter did not have the effect of setting a new time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal.
Keywords:
complaint; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 421
45th Session, 1980
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Facts (D)
Extract:
"the [organisation] observes that the complainant filed his complaint before the 60 days specified in article vii, paragraph 3, of the statute of the tribunal had expired. since, however, the 60 days have now elapsed and he has not yet had a decision taken on his claim, the [organisation] will not contest the receivability of his complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE ILOAT STATUTE
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 413
44th Session, 1980
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
On 29 November 1978 the Director-General informed the complainant of his intention to renew his contract for one year, but that it could not be renewed for any longer. On 28 February 1979 the complainant asked on what grounds he had been dismissed. On 15 March the Director-General, in drawing a distinction between the expiry of a fixed-term contract and dismissal, declined to give the explanation asked for. "Thus [he] merely upheld the decision taken on 29 November [...] and so set no new time limit for filing a complaint." The complaint, dated 20 May 1979, is time-barred.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 398
43rd Session, 1980
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
The Staff Regulations provide for two means of redress: requests and complaints. The "request" in question showed the characteristics of a complaint. The prescribed time limit having obviously expired, the Director declared the complainant's application time-barred. When she filed a further complaint, it was proper for him to uphold his earlier decision.
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 395
43rd Session, 1980
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The two decisions of 1974 at issue "were not impugned before the Tribunal within the time limit. They had therefore become final when the complainant challenged them in [...] 1978 and remained in full legal force as long as they were neither amended by the Director-General himself nor invalidated by special circumstances of time or of place."
Keywords:
complaint; decision; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 390
43rd Session, 1980
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The letter was delivered by hand at the complainant's residence, and the complainant does not deny that the letter was accepted at his residence nor offer any explanation as to what could thereafter have happened to it. "The complainant admittedly received this letter; he did not reply to it denying receipt of the memorandum. In these circumstances the Tribunal finds that the complainant was notified of the decision on 13 January and that consequently the complaint was not filed in time."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; evidence; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 364
41st Session, 1978
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Time runs from the latest effective decision. If it has run out from that decision, it does not begin to run again from a later decision which does no more than affirm the earlier one."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; date of notification; decision; new time limit; start of time limit; time limit;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, "a complaint shall not be receivable unless the person concerned has exhausted such other means of resisting it as are open to him in the applicable staff regulations. This means that where, as here, the Staff Regulations provide for an appeal committee, the person concerned must bring his complaint before that body within the time limits allowed by the regulation. Thus the question for the tribunal is whether the Appeals Board was right in rejecting the complaint on the ground that it was not brought before it in due time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 349
40th Session, 1978
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 27
Extract:
The organisation was in breach of contract in that it failed to specify and pay the night work indemnity. The complainant is accordingly entitled to be paid the indemnity in full; were it not for a regulation which prescribes that claims relating to the payment of indemnities may not be raised later than six months from the date on which the staff member became entitled to raise such a claim, he would have been entitled to back payments from the time he joined the organisation. But he is thereby barred from claiming more than six months' arrears.
Keywords:
allowance; breach; contract; night differential; organisation; payment; time limit;
Consideration 31
Extract:
"Under [the applicable provision] the complainant should have made his claim within six months from the date the injury originated or at latest within six months of the date when its serious consequences became manifest, and this he has failed to do. It is not enough to report the occurrence, as the complainant claims he did to a direct superior or to the organisation's male nurse or medical doctor; there must be a claim for compensation."
Keywords:
invalidity; professional accident; receivability of the complaint; service-incurred; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 347
40th Session, 1978
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant failed to impugn [the] decision within the period of ninety days prescribed in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal and it has therefore become final. Not only is it not now open to challenge but the arguments put forward against it are irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
iloat statute; time limit;
Judgment 338
40th Session, 1978
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Assuming that the appeals filed by the complainant were receivable, the complainant "should in any event have appealed to the [appeals body] not later than thirty days after [the confirmation of the decision]. He did not appeal to the [appeals body] until [...] after the time limit had expired. The Director-General was therefore right to dismiss the appeal."
Keywords:
internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 336
40th Session, 1978
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Assuming that the letter in question constitutes a claim requiring a decision, sixty days had elapsed without a decision being taken by the organisation. "But a complainant is not thereby obliged to treat silence as an adverse decision. He may prefer to continue or to resume the correspondence in the hope of obtaining a favourable decision. If he continues or reopens the case in this way, he must wait for another period of sixty days' silence before he can treat his claim as rejected. Since the complainant has not obtained a final decision [...] the complaint is irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 333
40th Session, 1978
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant appealed to the Director-General within the time limit for disputed claims. The Director-General dismissed her appeal by a letter which was not merely confirmatory. The complaint impugning that decision was filed within the time limit and is therefore receivable.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 328
39th Session, 1977
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants claim benefits dependent on their having non-local status. WHO Staff Rule 280.7 sets a retroactive time limit of one year for such claims. The complainants knew what they were doing at the time of recruitment when they signed a modified appointment form in order to obtain their employment. The organization may have acted reprehensibly, but its conduct amounts neither to concealment nor to bad faith: the organization may therefore rely on the material provision.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 280.7
ILOAT Judgment(s): 272
Keywords:
allowance; consequence; good faith; non-local status; non-retroactivity; organisation; receivability of the complaint; refund; time limit;
Judgment 322
39th Session, 1977
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
For reasons of a personal nature, the complainant waited six years before informing the organisation of the birth of an illegitimate child. He claimed retroactive payment of allowances from the date of the birth. The Tribunal finds that he has lost his right to retroactive payment, since he did not act within a reasonable period of time. To claim a lump-sum payment, after waiting several years, is to disregard the purpose of the provisions on family allowance.
Keywords:
dependent child; family allowance; non-retroactivity; purpose; reasonable time; request by a party; time limit;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is immaterial that according to [the relevant provision] an official may not waive his right to remuneration. [...] It is through his own delay that he may lose his right to family allowance, and not because of any express or implied waiver on his part."
Keywords:
dependent child; family allowance; reasonable time; request by a party; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 307
38th Session, 1977
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"[T]here is a clear distinction between a contract to appoint and the appointment itself, and it is normal to have an interval between the two so as to allow for the preparation of the formal documents. The payment of salary and the start of the official's duties, including the duty to travel to his place of work, would naturally be contemporaneous and begin on a date to be fixed by the letter of appointment."
Keywords:
appointment; contract; date; payment; salary; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
|
