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 4700
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges measures reorganising his working time.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s claim for an award of 8,000 euros for the delay in dealing with his internal complaint, the Tribunal notes that this internal complaint was lodged on 16 April 2018 and that the impugned decision is dated 6 June 2019. This period of almost 14 months far exceeds the period laid down by Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, which stipulates that the Director General is to provide his reasoned decision within four months. This therefore constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its own rules and the Tribunal considers the delay to be unreasonable in the circumstances.
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the amount of compensation liable to be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgment 4635, consideration 8). Although the length of the delay in the present case is significant, the adverse effects of that delay on the complainant are minimal in the circumstances. The Tribunal considers that the injury suffered will be fairly redressed by awarding him 1,000 euros in compensation under this head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4635
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4694
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision confirming his fitness for work and instructing him to resume his duties.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]n relation to the unreasonable delay in dealing with his internal complaint, to which the complainant refers in his rejoinder, given that the internal complaint was dated 10 July 2018, the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes was dated 29 March 2019 and the Organisation’s express decision rejecting the internal complaint was dated 9 May 2019, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to award the complainant any compensation under this head. Even though it is true that the period that elapsed between the date on which the internal complaint was lodged and the date of the express decision rejecting that complaint exceeded the period provided for in Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, the Tribunal considers that the delay in question cannot be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. What is more, the complainant has adduced no evidence of any injury that could result from this delay.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4684
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification exercise for her post and seeks compensation in this regard.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that these successive delays in updating the complainant’s job description are indeed unreasonable and that the Organization thereby breached its duty of care and its duty to exercise diligence with regard to these other failings. The effect was to unduly prolong the updating exercise over a period of almost eight years and inevitably caused the complainant moral injury, which may be fairly redressed by awarding her compensation in the amount of 3,000 euros.
Keywords:
duty of care; time limit;
Judgment 4682
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for post reclassification.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant cannot benefit from Judgment 3907 by relying on the principles of res judicata or stare decisis in order to elude the time limit for challenging the classification of his post. It must be recalled that Judgment 3907 set aside individual decisions based on Information Circular ICC/INF/2014/011 entitled “Principles and Procedures Applicable to Decisions Arising from the ReVision Project”. It held that pursuant to Presidential Directive ICC/PRESD/G/2003/001 of 9 December 2003, the Principles and Procedures should have been promulgated by an Administrative Instruction or, arguably, by a Presidential Directive. “As the promulgation of the Principles and Procedures by Information Circular was in violation of the Presidential Directive, they were without legal foundation and are, therefore, unlawful as are the decisions taken pursuant to the Principles and Procedures. It follows that the decisions to abolish the complainant’s position and to terminate the complainant’s appointment were also unlawful and will be set aside” (see Judgment 3907, consideration 26). Although the reference to the unlawfulness of “the decisions taken pursuant to the Principles and Procedures” may appear to be made in general terms, Judgment 3907 only concerns the decisions impugned in that case by the complainant who was party to that judgment, and it does not apply to third parties. Judgment 3907 has no res judicata authority in the present case, as the force and effect of res judicata can only be attributed to a judgment rendered between the same parties on the same subject matter, and this is not the case here. It is entrenched in the Tribunal’s case law that there is no exception to the general rule of res judicata, not even when a decision is of “general” application. The judgments of the Tribunal operate only in personam and not in rem. Notwithstanding the generality of the terms in which the Tribunal may dispose of a case before it, the judgment has effect only as between the parties to it (see Judgment 2220, consideration 5). Judgment 3907 has no effect on previously adopted individual decisions which were not impugned in due time (see Judgment 3357, considerations 13 and 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2220, 3357, 3907
Keywords:
res judicata; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Neither could Judgment 3907 be regarded as a new fact justifying an exception to the time limits for filing a complaint. The Tribunal’s case law states that, since time limits are an objective matter of fact, 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 her or his complaint receivable. 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 previously unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or when the employee 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. 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 (see Judgment 3002, considerations 13 and 14). Only under very special circumstances, did the Tribunal accept that the delivery of one of its judgments could be described as a new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance, within the meaning of the above-cited case law and could therefore have the effect of reopening the time limit within which a complainant could lodge an appeal (see Judgment 676).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 676, 3002, 3907
Keywords:
new fact; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law holds that time limits serve the purpose of, among other things, creating finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. An organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that a decision which is not challenged within the prescribed time limits is fully and legally effective when the applicable time limit for challenging that decision before the competent internal appeal bodies has passed (see Judgments 4374, considerations 7 and 8, 3940, consideration 2, 3755, consideration 3, 3439, consideration 4, and 2933, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2933, 3439, 3755, 3940, 4374
Keywords:
time limit;
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;
Judgment 4664
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that the recognition that there was an unreasonable delay does not in itself render the decision taken at the end of the procedure unlawful (see, for example, Judgments 4584, consideration 4, 4408, considerations 5 and 6, or 2885, consideration 14).
As regards the injury that may have been caused to the staff member by that delay, the Tribunal takes into account two considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the staff member concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4493, consideration 6, 4229, consideration 5, and 4031, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2885, 4031, 4229, 4408, 4493, 4584
Keywords:
internal procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4663
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to acknowledge the harassment that she alleges she suffered and to provide her with the full inquiry report drawn up following her internal complaint against a colleague.
Consideration 19
Extract:
It is settled case law that staff members are entitled to have their internal appeals examined with the necessary speed, having regard in particular to the nature of the decision that they wish to challenge (see, for example, Judgments 4457, consideration 29, 4037, consideration 15, or 3160, consideration 16). Moreover, the Tribunal has repeatedly pointed out that the duty of care requires organisations to deal with harassment cases as quickly and efficiently as possible (see, for example, Judgment 4243, consideration 24).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4037, 4243, 4457
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; harassment; time limit;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the complainant lodged his internal appeal on 20 August 2018, a period of 18 months had passed when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal on 27 February 2020. Such a delay must be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances, since the appeal in question concerned the disciplinary sanction of summary dismissal without indemnities, that is a decision with serious repercussions for the complainant, and the case therefore merited priority treatment by its very nature. This is particularly true given that in this case the Secretary General departed from the recommendation of the Joint Disciplinary Committee in choosing a more severe sanction and, if only for this reason, the complainant’s appeal could not be considered prima facie as devoid of any substance. Furthermore, although the Organization submits that the delay in examining the complainant’s appeal can be explained in part by the difficulties faced by the Joint Appeals Committee in operating owing to lockdown measures during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Tribunal notes that this justification cannot apply to the period prior to 27 February 2020, since the measures referred to were not implemented by the Organization until March 2020.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; disciplinary procedure; time limit;
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 21
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that international civil servants are entitled to expect that their cases will be considered by internal appeal bodies within a reasonable timeframe and that failure to comply with this requirement of expeditious proceedings constitutes a failing on the part of the employer organisation (see, for example, Judgment 3510, consideration 24, or Judgment 2116, consideration 11). Under the Tribunal’s case law, the amount of compensation that may be granted under this head ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, or 3160, consideration 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3160, 3510, 4100, 4178, 4635
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; moral injury; time limit;
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 24
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the amount of compensation that may be granted for a failure to comply with the requirement to deal with an internal appeal in a reasonable time ordinarily depends on two essential considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4635, consideration 8, 4178, consideration 15, 4100, consideration 7, and 3160, consideration 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4100, 4178, 4635
Keywords:
time limit;
Judgment 4609
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the new decision taken by UNESCO pursuant to Judgment 3936 in the context of her appeal against the decision to transfer her to Paris.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law shows that an organisation that is intending to transfer a staff member is obliged to ensure that the implementation of that measure is preceded by proper notice enabling the staff member to make the necessary arrangements for the change in her or his duty station (see [...] Judgment 1556, consideration 12, Judgment 1496, considerations 11 and 13, and [...] Judgment 810, consideration 7). In the present case, the period of 11 days given to the complainant under the decision of 18 February 2013 to take up her new post at Headquarters clearly fell short of that requirement, particularly given that in practical terms the transfer in question involved moving from Kinshasa to Paris.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1496, 1556
Keywords:
duty station; notification; time limit; transfer;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant is right in contending that the unlawfulness of the impugned decision caused her moral injury. The lack of advance information provided to the complainant about the content of the new duties she was to assume and the unduly short period of time she was given to take up her new post in Paris were such as to cause her stress and anxiety and adversely affected her rights and her dignity, which is characteristic of that form of injury.
Keywords:
duty to inform; moral injury; notification; post description; time limit; transfer;
Judgment 4594
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of a competition in which she took part.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant complains about what she regards as the excessively long delay in dealing with her internal complaint. While the period of nine months between the submission of the internal complaint that was the subject of the impugned decision and the date on which that decision was delivered undeniably exceeds the period laid down in Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulation by five months, and therefore constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its own rules, the Tribunal considers that the duration of the procedure cannot be regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, even though that duration breached the applicable provisions, the complainant has not adduced any specific evidence of injury arising from the delay.
Keywords:
delay; time limit;
Judgment 4593
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of his right to supplementary days of annual leave for “travelling time”.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A]lthough it is true that the period of six and a half months between the lodging of the internal complaint that is the subject of the impugned decision and the delivery of that impugned decision exceeds the period provided for in Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulations, which constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its own rules, theTribunal considers that the delay cannot be considered unreasonable in the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, even though that period breached the applicable provisions, the complainant has not adduced any specific evidence of injury arising from the delay.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; time limit;
Judgment 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[The complainant] contends that the request for reconsideration he had initially lodged [...] did not receive a reply from the Secretary-General within the period of 45 days specified [...]. According to ITU’s explanations on this point, a decision on the request for reconsideration had in fact been taken but owing to an unfortunate administrative error had been sent to the complainant’s old work email address, meaning that the complainant, who no longer had access to that address, could not be aware of it. That error is plainly regrettable, but the Tribunal notes that, under Staff Rule 11.1.3(7)(b)(ii), a staff member who submits a request for reconsideration may, if she or he does not receive a reply to that request within the prescribed time limit, submit an appeal to the Appeal Board, as the complainant did in this case. Moreover, it is not disputed that ITU forwarded the decision rejecting the complainant’s request for reconsideration and the appended documents to him during the appeal procedure before the Appeal Board and that he had the opportunity to comment on those documents in that procedure. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the failure to provide proper notification of the decision in question did not, in the present case, in fact breach the complainant’s right of appeal nor in consequence render the final decision taken at the end of the internal appeal procedure unlawful.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; notification; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues that [the] final decision was not communicated to him, as required under the combined provisions of Staff Rule 11.1.3(7)(i) and Staff Rule 11.1.4, within the time limit of 205 days from the date of submission of his appeal, as it was not communicated until 209 days afterwards. That is factually correct, and it bears noting that the delay was specifically attributable, in this case, to the Secretary-General’s failure to observe the 45-day time limit allowed for him to take a decision on the appeal after receipt of the Appeal Board’s report. However, time limits of this kind are plainly not intended to have the effect of nullifying a decision taken after their expiry. Their non-observance does not therefore render such decisions unlawful and, where that non-observance is wrongful, it may only entitle the staff member concerned to compensation if it causes injury to her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4408, considerations 5 and 6, or 2885, consideration 14). In the present case, the evidence does not in any event show that the failure to observe the time limit by just four days caused the complainant identifiable injury.
Keywords:
delay; time limit;
Judgment 4471
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[O]ver one year elapsed between the lodging by the complainant of his psychological harassment complaint and the notification of the decision to close it, which informed him of the outcome of the preliminary investigation. In Judgment 4243, the Tribunal states that harassment cases should be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible (see also Judgment 3660, consideration 7). As the complainant rightly points out in his complaint, the Tribunal has consistently held, inter alia, in Judgments 3692, consideration 18, and 3777, consideration 7, that an organisation has a duty to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation into harassment complaints. The Policy of Eurocontrol echoes this. It provides that the Director General will, without delay, set up a preliminary investigation to ascertain whether the internal harassment complaint warrants the convening of the Disciplinary Board; it also provides that this investigation will be performed with the minimum of delay consistent with fairness to both parties (paragraph 4.7 of the Guidelines and Procedures to support the Policy). It should be added that the Tribunal emphasises in several judgments that the duty of care requires an allegation of harassment to be investigated promptly (see, for example, Judgments 2636, consideration 28, 3337, considerations 11 and 15, and 3365, consideration 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636, 3337, 3365, 3660, 3692, 3777, 4243
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay in internal procedure; harassment; time limit;
Judgment 4401
132nd Session, 2021
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her application for the reimbursement of medical expenses.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that the slow handling of her internal complaint caused her medical and psychological harm.
Under Article 35(2) of Rule of Application No. 10, “[b]efore taking a decision regarding a complaint submitted under Article 92.2 of the Staff Regulations [...], the Director General shall request the opinion of the Management Committee. The Management Committee may instruct its Chairman to make further investigations. Where the point at issue is of a medical nature, the Management Committee may seek expert medical advice before giving its opinion. The cost of the expert opinion shall be borne by the Agency’s Sickness Insurance Scheme. The Management Committee must give its opinion within two months of the request being received. The opinion shall be transmitted simultaneously to the Director General and to the person concerned.”
Under Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Director General is to notify the person concerned of her or his reasoned decision within four months from the date on which the internal complaint was lodged.
In this case, on 19 January 2017 the complainant lodged an internal complaint with the Director General against the decision of 15 December 2016 informing her of the refusal to cover the costs of the acupuncture sessions because the treatment had not been carried out by a doctor. The impugned decision was taken on 7 November 2017, more than ten months later.
The Tribunal notes that the Organisation had four months from the date when the internal complaint was filed to take a decision on it. It breached its own rules by exceeding this period by six months. However, in her submissions, the complainant does not establish that any particular injury arose from that breach. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to award her compensation under this head (see, for example, Judgment 4396, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396
Keywords:
injury; moral injury; time limit;
Judgment 4221
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[C]onsistent 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3947, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3947
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 4210
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss as irreceivable his claim for compensation for injury or illness attributable to service.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is to be recalled that Article 12 of Appendix D provides that claims for compensation shall be submitted within four months of, relevantly, the “onset of the illness”. The language of the Article is, in this respect, clear as is the purpose of the time limit as discussed in Judgment 3949 in the quotation set out above. There is no warrant for reading into the provision a qualification of the type advanced by the complainant. It is clear from the evidence that the complainant was aware or believed that the illness from which he suffered which led him to take sick leave in June 2015 was work-related. There is no reason to doubt that the ABCC was correct in concluding that the onset of the illness was, at the latest, June 2015. The related argument that a too narrow construction of the expression “onset of the illness” would give rise to arbitrary decision-making is unfounded. Ultimately whether the time limit has been met will depend on the facts of any particular case and it has to be borne in mind that there is an overriding discretion invested in the Director-General by Article 12 itself to accept for consideration a claim lodged out of time in exceptional circumstances.
Keywords:
service-incurred; time limit;
Judgment 4118
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Even if the Tribunal were to accept to regard the claims in question as being directed against the [...] decision of 12 July 2007, they would still be irreceivable, since they would be time-barred. Indeed, it has been established that the complainant did not impugn the said decision before the Tribunal within the period of ninety days provided for in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The decision therefore became final, and the complainant could no longer seek to challenge it in his request of 30 April 2015, almost eight years later. As a result, on this issue, the implied decision of the President of the Office to reject that request must be considered as purely confirmatory of the earlier decision of 12 July 2007. As such, it could not set off a new time limit for an appeal by the complainant (see, for example, Judgments 698, consideration 7, 1304, consideration 5, 2449, consideration 9, or 3002, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 698, 1304, 2449, 3002
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; implied decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 | next >
|
