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 3225
115th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully asks for her short-term contracts to be converted into fixed-term contracts.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complaint form was filed within the time limit specified in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, albeit without the brief and supporting evidence which, according to Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules of the Tribunal, had to be appended to it. Contrary to [the defendant]’s submissions, this does not signify that the complaint was submitted out of time, since paragraph 2 of the above-mentioned article affords the complainant the possibility of correcting a complaint that does not meet the requirements of the Rules. In the instant case, the complaint was corrected on 30 March 2011, within the time limit set by the Registrar of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute; Article 6, paragraph 1(b) and (c), of the Rules
Keywords:
correction of complaint; date; formal requirements; iloat statute; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3215
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Reference is made to decisions of this Tribunal which make it clear that an organisation is under a duty to investigate claims of harassment promptly and bona fide (see Judgments 2552, 2654 and 2910).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2552, 2654, 2910
Keywords:
claim; harassment; investigation; time limit;
Judgment 3188
114th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to update her job description, not to select her for a G-6 position and her alleged subsequent demotion.
Consideration 25
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly observed, internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see for example Judgment 2522, under 7). While the time an appeal might reasonably take will often depend on the particular circumstances of a given case, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902, under 16, that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
delay; duty of care; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 3168
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the characterization of his service during a certain period and the date taken into account by WHO to determine his entry on duty within the United Nations system.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is firm Tribunal case law that a staff member is entitled to an efficient internal means of redress and to expect a decision on an internal appeal to be taken within a reasonable time (see Judgments 2904, under 14 and 15, 2851, under 10, and 2116, under 11). It can be seen from the above summary of the internal appeal process that there were a number of requests for extensions of time by both parties and in some instances consented to by the opposing party. While the departure of a staff member responsible for an appeal is beyond the control of the Administration, the latter does bear the responsibility of providing adequate staffing in keeping with its obligation to provide an efficient means of internal redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2851, 2904
Keywords:
administrative delay; decision; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit;
Judgment 3160
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"As to the compensation for the delay, it is well established that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see, in particular, Judgment 2522). Furthermore, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902 that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”. The time an appeal might reasonably take will usually depend on the particular circumstances. The Director-General recognised that the time taken in this case, a little over two years, was excessive and awarded moral damages. As noted earlier, both the complainant and UNIDO dispute the quantum of damages awarded by the Director-General for delay.
The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant. For example, an extensive delay in relation to an appeal concerning the dismissal of a staff member could have a profound impact on his or her circumstances. On the other hand, a delay of precisely the same period in relation to an appeal concerning a comparatively trifling issue may have limited or possibly even no impact on the circumstances of the staff member."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
compensation; damages; delay; effect; general principle; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 3127
113th Session, 2012
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[W]here an internal appeal is lodged within the required time limit but fails to comply with the formal requirements set down in the applicable rules, it is for the organisation, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the complainant to correct the appeal by granting him or her a reasonable period of time in which to do so."
Keywords:
breach; correction of complaint; duty of care; duty of discretion; formal flaw; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 3116
113th Session, 2012
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant submitted his complaint by sending a scanned complaint form to the Tribunal via an e-mail of 11 May 2010, with only sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 filled in. One of the essential sections, section 4, had been left blank. He submitted a completed version of the form on 18 May 2010.
"It should be recalled that Article 6(1)(a) of the Rules of the Tribunal sets out the requirements of form for filing a complaint: the complainant should fill in and sign the complaint form prescribed in the Schedule of those Rules. The complainant’s requests to the Tribunal that he be allowed to correct retroactively the incomplete initial complaint form, sent on 11 May 2010, and consequently that the completed revision of it, sent on 18 May, be accepted as having been filed on 11 May, are denied. Indeed, the entries in the initial complaint form did not suffice to identify the relief the complainant was claiming. Therefore, one of the essential requirements of form set out in Article 6(1) was not met and the complaint could not be registered as filed on 11 May 2010. Moreover, this case does not fall within the purview of the thirty-day time limit prescribed by Article 6(2) of the Rules for correction of complaints. [...] Consequently, the document filed on [11 May 2010] cannot be considered a complaint, as it did not contain the claims which are essential elements of a complaint. The complaint form, properly filled in, was filed on 18 May 2010, i.e. six days after the expiration of the ninety-day time limit. Therefore, the complaint must be considered irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Rules
Keywords:
complaint form; correction of complaint; formal requirements; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3112
113th Session, 2012
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant did not sign the offer of appointment within the time limit prescribed by the organisation.
"As the complainant herself acknowledged, there were still unresolved issues that she wished to have settled before entering into a contract. Accordingly, it cannot be said that at that time there was any contractual relationship between the parties, let alone an employment relationship. As there was no employment relationship, the complainant was not an official of the organisation. It follows that the Tribunal is not competent to hear the complaint and that, therefore, it must be dismissed."
Keywords:
acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; contract; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; refusal; status of complainant; terms of appointment; time limit;
Judgment 3075
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"An organisation has the duty to follow its own Rules, and to do its best to ensure the proper functioning of its internal appeal system. The application of time limits in the internal appeal procedure is a safeguard for a proper functioning of the system. The internal appeal procedure is indeed an important step in the remedying of disputes given that an appeal body's competence is broader than that of the Tribunal. Therefore, just as staff members have the duty to pursue their appeals with due diligence, an organisation has the duty to respect the time limits and cannot rely on staff members to monitor the procedures. The possibility of filing a complaint directly with the Tribunal is to be considered a further safeguard for a proper functioning of an internal appeal system and not a fast track for settling a dispute between the parties through a judgment from the Tribunal. Indeed, an internal appeal system which is not fully functional affects the right of defence."
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 3070
112th Session, 2012
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed (see Judgment 2414, under 23). Precedent also has it that the procedure used for drawing up a performance appraisal forming the basis of a dismissal decision must always be adversarial (see, in particular, Judgments 2468, under 17, and 2515, under 18)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 2515
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; criteria; date; duty to inform; organisation's duties; purpose; right; termination of employment; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3059
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is fundamental to the law governing the relations between a staff member and an international organisation that adverse decisions, including adverse performance reports, must be challenged in a timely manner and in accordance with the relevant staff rules and regulations. If not, those decisions become final and cannot be reopened."
Keywords:
decision; internal appeal; mandatory time limit; performance report; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 3039
111th Session, 2011
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2064, under 5, performance reports continue to be useful even if deadlines have not been respected, and failure to meet a deadline cannot on its own be a reason for setting aside reports. However, depending on the case, the effect that the delay has on the report's content will be taken into account."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2064
Keywords:
breach; condition; consequence; delay; judicial review; performance report; time limit;
Judgment 3034
111th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
[The] period for filing a complaint expired on 28 December 2008. However, as that was a Sunday, the complaints of the persons concerned could still be filed on the following day (see Judgments 306, 517 and 2250, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 306, 517, 2250
Keywords:
late filing; sunday; time limit;
Judgment 3002
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13 to 15
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time [...]. 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 his or her complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgments 602, under 3, 1466, under 5 and 6, or 2821, under 8).
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 unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or else when the employee is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he/she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken (see Judgments 676, under 1, 2203, under 7, or 2722, under 4). 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.
In particular, in the instant case, the complainant's argument that the delivery of Judgment 2359 constitutes a new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance, within the meaning of the above-cited case law, is to no avail. In Judgment 676 the Tribunal did accept that the delivery of one of its judgments could be described in these terms and could therefore have the effect of reopening the time limit within which a complainant could lodge an appeal. But the circumstances of the case were very special in that the Tribunal, in previous judgments which it cited in that case, had formulated a rule which had greatly altered the position of certain staff members of an organisation and which, although already applied by the organisation, had until then not been published or communicated to the staff members concerned. No exceptional circumstances of this nature exist in the instant case [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 602, 676, 1466, 2203, 2359, 2722, 2821
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal; late appeal; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; suspension of the execution of a judgment; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2996
110th Session, 2011
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to firm precedent, the provisions governing internal appeals will not be applied to a complainant if he or she might have been misled as to the conditions for lodging such an appeal and if they thus set a trap which is liable to catch out someone who is acting in good faith (see, for example, Judgments 1376, under 13, or 1720, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 1720
Keywords:
internal appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2993
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It may well be that where an organisation conceals the existence of a cause of action, time will run only from such time as the cause of action is discovered."
Keywords:
cause of action; organisation; organisation's duties; right of appeal; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 2975
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment / Non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment as a result of restructuring.
"The case law allows that where the Administration has failed to take a decision 'within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it', as provided for by Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, and the staff member has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time and a decision is not received, he or she may proceed directly before the Tribunal without waiting for a final decision (see Judgment 2631, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2631
Keywords:
absence of final decision; direct appeal to tribunal; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2951
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An appeal against a decision which has recurring effects cannot be time-barred: each month in which the complainant receives her payslip, in accordance with her step-in-grade assignment, must be considered a source of a new cause of action (see Judgment 978, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 978
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; continuing breach; internal appeal; late appeal; payslip; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2948
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"While Article VII, paragraph 3, of the [Tribunal's] Statute 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', the Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of the claim to the advisory appeal body constitutes a 'decision upon [the] claim' within the meaning of these provisions, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see, for example, Judgments 532, 762, 786 or 2681)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681
Keywords:
absence of final decision; case law; date of notification; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2907
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law as established in Judgments 752, under 4, and 2821, under 9, for example, exceptions may be made to the applicable time limits when an organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 752, 2821
Keywords:
good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
|
