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: 348
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 | next >
Judgment 259
35th Session, 1975
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The decision in question, which merely upheld an earlier decision, could "not give rise to new time limits for the lodging of an appeal by the complainant."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; decision; internal appeal; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Considerations
Extract:
Under the applicable provision, the complainant had a period of six weeks in which to appeal against the decision which he regarded as detrimental. "No appeal having been lodged within that period, the decision had [...] become final [...] when the complainant asked for review of his case. The Secretary-General and subsequently the Appeal Board therefore acted lawfully in dismissing the request on that ground." No exceptional circumstances warranted a derogation from the prescribed time limits.
Keywords:
decision; internal appeal; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 258
35th Session, 1975
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complaint was filed "clearly after the expiry of the time limit set by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. It is declared irreceivable in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Rules of court, notwithstanding the absence of any reply by the organization on the merits."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 249
34th Session, 1975
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant "did not appeal to the Tribunal against either decision within the statutory time limits. The decisions have therefore become final and are no longer open to appeal unless the Secretary-General exercises his power to reopen the case."
Keywords:
case reopened; decision; exception; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 211
30th Session, 1973
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The complainant has failed to deliver a rejoinder within the time-limit allowed. The Tribunal will therefore consider the case on the dossier as it is."
Keywords:
closure of written proceedings; delay; rejoinder; time limit;
Judgment 200
30th Session, 1973
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant made no appeal within the time limit against the decision to confirm his transfer. "That decision has thus become final." He did impugn another decision in time which had no connection with the first decision, but that will not extend the period within which an appeal may be lodged against the first decision.
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 196
29th Session, 1972
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The appeal addressed to the Director-General was dismissed on 15 April. Whatever the date of the impugned decision, "the complainant could properly file an appeal as from 15 April [...] and consequently the claims he submitted to the Appeals Board on 27 April [...] were receivable. [H]ence the argument that the appeal was irreceivable affords no grounds for contending that the internal means of resisting the decision were not exhausted."
Keywords:
date; decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 181
27th Session, 1971
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
If the time limit had expired, "the Director-General could indeed have refused to consider the complainant's protest. However, the ruling given [...] on his instructions makes no reference to the expiry of the time limit. Failure to observe a time limit laid down by the [applicable provision] is not [a flaw] which can be pleaded at a later stage in the procedure."
Keywords:
flaw; internal appeal; mistaken hearing of merits; procedural flaw; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The date on which the appeal is despatched is the important one. "[I]n laying down that staff members must submit their appeal in writing to the [competent body] within 15 or 30 days, [the applicable provision] implies that the important one is that on which the appeal is despatched."
Keywords:
date; internal appeal; interpretation; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 165
25th Session, 1970
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
When first appointed in March 1952, the complainant was not enrolled in the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. Although this decision was not at the time notified, it was confirmed and notified by the letter of January 1957 which informed the complainant that he would become a member of the pension fund from the following month. The date of receipt of that letter was the date at which the statutory period began to run for the lodging of an appeal. Filed in November 1968, the appeal was time-barred and the dismissing of the appeal was not tainted with illegality.
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; forfeiture of benefit; internal appeal; participation; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; unjspf;
Judgment 164
25th Session, 1970
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
When first appointed in May 1951, the complainant was not enrolled in the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. Although this decision was not at the time notified, it was confirmed and notified by the letter of January 1957 which informed the complainant that he would become a member of the pension fund from the following month. The date of receipt of that letter was the date at which the statutory period began to run for the lodging of an appeal. Filed in November 1968, the appeal was time-barred and the dismissing of the appeal was not tainted with illegality.
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; forfeiture of benefit; internal appeal; participation; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; unjspf;
Judgment 154
23rd Session, 1970
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2(B)
Extract:
It is stated in their contracts that officials are initially appointed to a given post, subject to possible transfer subsequently. "The wording [initially, subsequently] of this provision does not mean that in every case an official must perform the duties of the original post for a certain period of time before being required to accept re-assignment. If the first assignment appears straight away to be unsuitable, there is nothing to prevent his immediate re-assignment. Any other solution might be as damaging to the official as to the organisation."
Keywords:
appointment; assignment; interpretation; organisation's interest; time limit; transfer;
Consideration 2(C)
Extract:
The Director-General was not obliged to postpone the complainant's re-assignment because of alleged ill health. The disorders cited did not afford sufficient proof that he was unable to comply with the transfer order. The medical certificate bears a date later than the date of the complainant's scheduled departure. "In any event, it was not incumbent on the organisation to carry out automatically any inquiry into the complainant's state of health."
Keywords:
health reasons; medical examination; organisation's duties; time limit; transfer;
Judgment 140
22nd Session, 1969
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"After the close of the written proceedings the complainant communicated to the Tribunal a statement [...] signed [by a third party]. In principle the Tribunal takes account of all documents produced before the opening of the session at which the relevant case is to be judged. In the case at issue, the Tribunal has no reason not to take the statement into consideration. At the most it might ask the complainant to certify its authenticity, but this is unnecessary since the document in question cannot affect the outcome of the proceedings."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; closure of written proceedings; disclosure of evidence; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 130
21st Session, 1969
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Failing any action to resist the decision within the prescribed time-limits, the decision not to renew the complainant's appointment became final and can no longer be challenged; consequently, all the complainant's links with the organization were severed from the date on which his contract expired.
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; time limit;
Judgment 123
20th Session, 1968
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that within the meaning of [the applicable provision] two years of continuous service must be interpreted as a period of service as a staff member covered by the Staff Regulations and Rules." The complainant was so covered only by some of his contracts.
Keywords:
enforcement; interpretation; right; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 | next >
|
