ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

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



  • Judgment 122


    20th Session, 1968
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    The decision not to renew his contract was notified to the complainant on 6 March and again on 15 June following his request for a review. On 25 June the complainant addressed a request to the organisation based on new arguments and directed to securing reconsideration of his case. Following this request the Director-General communicated to the complainant on 14 August a decision definitely confirming the previous decision, but in part on new grounds. The time limit for the filing of the complaint began to run only from the date of the notification of the decision of 14 August.

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; complaint; confirmatory decision; contract; date; date of notification; decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;



  • Judgment 108


    17th Session, 1967
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The fact that the Director-General had not given a ruling in accordance with [the material provision] could be regarded as failure to take a decision on a claim, thus entitling complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal under Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute. [However] the complainant would have had to file his complaint with the Administrative Tribunal within the 90 days following the 60 days during which the Director-General failed to give a ruling on his claim [...]. [He] is obviously time-barred."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 91


    16th Session, 1966
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "As regards the arguments based on equity which the complainant puts forward in favour of a review of his grievances, the Tribunal cannot take these arguments into account since the time limit provided for in the Statute of the Tribunal is mandatory; it is binding on the complainant and cannot be extended by the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    complaint; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 87


    15th Session, 1965
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "The complainant's counsel, after the close of the last public hearing, submitted ten documents which had not been communicated to the agent of the organization and upon which he therefore had no opportunity to comment. In conformity with the principle that each party shall be fully heard on all the evidence admitted, these documents were excluded from the dossier on which the Tribunal took its decision."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; closure of written proceedings; disclosure of evidence; receivability of the complaint; refusal; time limit; tribunal;



  • Judgment 82


    14th Session, 1965
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The interveners submitted a document on 2 April. On 10 April the judgment was delivered, after the public hearing of 6 April. Applications to intervene may be made at any stage; "that does not necessarily mean that interveners are entitled to invoke up to the day of the proceedings any facts, evidence and new documents. [The material document] deals solely with points of law and raises no new points. Consequently [...] the organisation, [which] learned of this legal opinion three days before the oral proceedings began, has been able usefully to discuss the arguments and the conclusions. The [adversarial] procedure has thus been [followed]".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; intervention; oral proceedings; receivability of the complaint; time limit;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "In accordance with a well-established and generally recognised principle of law, any judgment compelling one party to pay to the other party a sum of money implies, in itself, the obligation to pay that sum without delay. It could be otherwise only in the event that the judgment expressly mentioned that this sum would be payable only at a later date and where the Statutes of the court concerned make provision for the right to appeal against the judgments delivered by it and formally state that exercise of that right of appeal carries suspensory effect on execution of those judgments."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61

    Keywords:

    delay in payment; exception; execution of judgment; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; suspensory effects; time limit;



  • Judgment 81


    14th Session, 1965
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The complainant is attempting to deduce rights from clauses to which her husband could not have had recourse [...] the decisions relating to the application of the new pensions scheme were not contested by [the person concerned] within the period of 90 days prescribed by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, and these decisions, which thus became final in regard to [the person concerned], had the effect of irrevocably altering, before the date of his death, both the terms of his contract of appointment and the provisions of the regulations applicable in his case" - the person concerned could not, immediately before his death, have invoked in his favour the regulations in question. Nor is the complainant entitled to do so now.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; enforcement; receivability of the complaint; successor; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 80


    14th Session, 1965
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Decisions of a general nature "could be contested before the Tribunal only within the period of 90 days specified in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal [...]. The said decisions were not contested within the required time; they became final so far as the complainant is concerned and irrevocably modified, prior to the date on which her pension rights were settled, both the terms of her contract of appointment and the regulations applicable in her case."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; complaint; general decision; pension; pension entitlements; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 59


    10th Session, 1962
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "It is not within the competence of the Tribunal to enlarge the period of 90 days which Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal lays down as the period within which a decision complained of can be appealed and the [complaint] must be dismissed as time-barred and irreceivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint; mandatory time limit; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 55


    9th Session, 1961
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    As the complaint was not filed within the time limit provided for under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, it is not receivable. "It is to no purpose that the complainant alleges that she was unaware of the conditions under which she had access to the Tribunal, since she had been provided with a copy of the Staff Rules of the organization, articles [...] of which make provision both for access to the Tribunal and for the availability of the Statute of the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    complaint; duty to inform; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 54


    9th Session, 1961
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    "Where, as in the present case, no specific decision is taken, either at the request of the person concerned or by the administration acting on its own initiative, specifying that the temporary employment contract of [an] official is not to be renewed, the period within which the official may appeal against the refusal to renew his contract is reckoned from the day on which the contract expires."

    Keywords:

    contract; date; fixed-term; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; notice; start of time limit; time limit;



  • Judgment 53


    9th Session, 1961
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "It is open to the organization to require by decision taken in reasonable time reimbursement in whole or in part of the overpayment, account being taken of all the circumstances of the case, including inter alia the bona or mala fides of the official, the nature of the error, the degree of negligence of the organization and of the official and the hardship caused to the official by any subsequent recovery in consequence of an error of the organization."

    Keywords:

    complainant; general principle; good faith; negligence; organisation; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; time limit;



  • Judgment 40


    8th Session, 1960
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Tribunal is bound by the time limit of 90 days laid down for the lodging of complaints in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. "Article 18 of the Rules of court authorises the Tribunal to extend only those time limits provided in the Rules and not those provided in the Statute."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE;
    ARTICLE 18 OF THE RULES


    Keywords:

    complaint; enforcement; exception; iloat statute; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 31


    7th Session, 1958
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The time limits for the submission of complaints provided for in the Statute of the Tribunal are mandatory, and [...] the Tribunal must ensure that they are respected."

    Keywords:

    complaint; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 21


    5th Session, 1955
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration on receivability

    Extract:

    "Whereas the complaint was not submitted within the period of time of 90 days provided in the Regulations running from the date on which the decision impugned was taken [...], such was due to the transfer of the complainant to hospital [...] the complainant could only take cognizance of this decision at the conclusion of her hospitalization [...]. She brought her complaint in due form within ninety days from that date [...]. The organization does not [...] plead non-receivability following the late notification of the complaint; the delay is clearly due to vis major".

    Keywords:

    complaint; exception; force majeure; health reasons; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 15


    4th Session, 1954
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "The time limit of 15 days statutorily granted to the complainant to file an appeal against [the decision in question] is re-opened as from the date of the present judgment."

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; internal appeal; judgment of the tribunal; new time limit; time limit;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17


 
Last updated: 14.06.2024 ^ top