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 1611
82nd Session, 1997
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"It was open to the complainant to withdraw the obviously premature complaint [...] and lodge a new one which complied with the time limit in Article VII(3) [of the Tribunal's Statute]. What his counsel supplied [...] was no new complaint but merely a version of the original one corrected in compliance with the Registrar's instructions. So for the purpose of a ruling on his observance of the time limit his complaint is still the [the original one]." The claim in that complaint being therefore premature, it is for that reason irreceivable too.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; correction of complaint; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1609
82nd Session, 1997
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Although the complainants "corrected their second complaints more than ninety days after getting notice of the decisions, they did not act out of time on that account. They filed in time with the Tribunal complaint forms identifying the decisions they were impugning; their counsel duly applied for extensions of the time limit for correction; and those extensions were duly granted under Article 14 of the Tribunal's Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 14 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; date of notification; decision; iloat statute; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1554
81st Session, 1996
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant is wrong in contending that for challenging the non-renewal of his contract the time limit of ninety days was somehow held over because of a connexion with his application for a post. His complaint shows two distinct elements: the non-renewal of his contract on 31 January 1994 and his unsuccessful application for a post in April 1994. His failure to file a complaint with the Tribunal within ninety days of 31 January 1994 means that any claim in relation to his contract is time-barred. As for his application for a post, by the time he made it he was no longer an employee of the Organisation. Since an outside candidate for employment does not have access to the Tribunal his complaint is irreceivable in that regard as well."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
candidate; competition; complainant; contract; external candidate; locus standi; non-renewal of contract; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1549
81st Session, 1996
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Although an organisation [may consider] late applicants, it must, whenever a competition is required or desired, announce a new deadline in the same way as it did the vacancy. It will then commit no breach of equality and the competition will be seen as fair."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; delay; due process; equal treatment; internal candidate; new time limit; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; selection procedure; time limit; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1536
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant seeks admission to the health insurance fund two years after his retirement even though the time limit for such claims is three months. "The answer to the complainant's plea of breach of equality is that the admission of the other retired official as an associate participant was a wrong decision. It should not be followed, and the board of management was right to refuse to follow it. Equality of treatment means equality in the observance of the law, not in the breach of it."
Keywords:
definition; equal treatment; general principle; health insurance; illness; insurance; retirement; time limit;
Judgment 1528
81st Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The precedents are clear: "A reply to a further request for reconsideration is not a new decision setting off a new time limit for appeal. The complaint fails because it is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
case law; complaint; confirmatory decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1502
81st Session, 1996
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Organization's "own interests and sound management demand strict compliance with time limits, and non-compliance means forfeiting a right or the exercise thereof: see Judgment 1446 [...] under 3, the further judgments cited therein and Judgment 1485 [...]. A time limit is not to be waived just because claims are seldom late or because the consequences of refusing waiver would be too harsh."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 1485
Keywords:
case law; delay; exception; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit; written rule;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Time limits must be construed in good faith. If an organisation wants to put procedural restrictions on one of the staff member's rights or on the exercise thereof it must draft clearly enough to avoid setting traps."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376
Keywords:
case law; delay; good faith; interpretation; time bar; time limit; written rule;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The time limit must start at the date at which payment becomes due. If that were not so, the lapse of time would work to the claimant's detriment for as long as the rules precluded his making the claim. To make the would-be claimant wait, for any reason, before making the claim bars repayment. So the staff have grounds for supposing that they are not free [under Staff Regulation R VIII 1.01] to make claims until they can group." That being a reasonable construction, "for CERN to impose a narrower one would be an abuse of authority."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CERN STAFF REGULATION R VIII 1.01
Keywords:
good faith; interpretation; no provision; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 1500
80th Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant filed within the time limit in the Statute the complaint form provided for in the Schedule to the Rules. The entries sufficed to identify the decision he was impugning and the relief he was claiming. The registering of the complaint and the correcting of it within the time limit were in line with the Rules. Since the complaint was lodged in time the Organization's objection to receivability fails."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; correction of complaint; decision; formal requirements; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute says that a complaint must be filed within ninety days after the complainant had notice of the impugned decision; Article 6(1) of the Rules sets out the requirements of form; and 6(2) says that if not satisfied that the complaint meets those requirements the registrar shall call upon the complainant to correct it within thirty days. The Rules do not say that all the formal requirements must be met by the date of filing."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(1) AND 6(2) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; date; date of notification; decision; formal requirements; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1486
80th Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is true that Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute requires a complainant, before he files suit with the Tribunal, not just to apply for internal review but also to await the outcome of the internal proceedings. Yet that is not a hard-and-fast rule, even though the Statute does not allow any express derogation. If a complainant does his utmost to procure a decision, and if nevertheless the internal appeals body evinces by its statements or conduct an intention not to report within a reasonable time, justice requires that an exception be made. A mere failure to proceed with all proper speed and diligence is not enough: it is only if the proceedings have been so protracted that the delay is inordinate, unexplained and inexcusable that such an intention will be inferred: see Judgments 408 [...] and 451 [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 408, 451
Keywords:
administrative delay; case law; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant had done everything in his power to exhaust his internal remedies and [at a certain date] it was quite clear that the internal process of review would not be concluded within a time which the Tribunal may regard as reasonable in the circumstances. [...] The complaint is therefore receivable."
Keywords:
administrative delay; exception; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1468
80th Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The case turns on a question whose answer may affect another official adversely. "She is invited to make such submissions to the Tribunal as she thinks fit, and to do so within thirty days of her receiving the text of the present judgment, which is an interlocutory order. The Union and the complainant may each file observations within a time limit of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of her submissions."
Keywords:
additional written submissions; further submissions; interlocutory order; staff member's interest; submissions; time limit;
Judgment 1466
80th Session, 1996
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Precedent has it that a time limit is a matter of objective fact and begins to run when a decision is notified. [...] The only exceptions that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the decision (see Judgment 21 [...]) and where the defendant has misled him or withheld some document from him in breach of good faith (see Judgment 752)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 752
Keywords:
case law; exception; force majeure; good faith; organisation; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1464
80th Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant contends that her complaint is receivable because she may act under Article VII(3), the organization having failed to take its decision on her appeal within the sixty days' time limit set in that provision. But her reading of VII(3) is mistaken. It does not require that the process of appeal be completed within sixty days."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; interpretation; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1451
79th Session, 1995
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The organisation objects to the receivability of the complaint because "the impugned decision makes amendments to the regulations and is therefore a general one about the tenor of rules. As was said in Judgment 1393, under 6 to 8, the Tribunal has often ruled on the issue, especially for the purpose of determining when the time limit starts for appeal. It has held that where a general decision gives rise to decisions affecting individuals the time limit is set off only on notification to the official of the individual decision that affects him. Moreover, as was held in Judgment 1000, under 12, the employee may, when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly, 'challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision [...] that affords the basis of the individual one'. In sum, the staff member need not ordinarily impugn at once a general decision he believes has caused him injury but may, without any risk of being time-barred, wait until the general decision affects him in the form of an individual one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1393
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complaint; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1442
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The EPO pleads that the complaint is irreceivable on the grounds that theinternal appeal came too long after the announcement of the disputed measure and the general decision to apply it to the staff. "The objection cannot be sustained. What the complainant is impugning is not those general decisions but theapplication of them to himself which would be the consequence of the EPO's holding to its - in his view mistaken - interpretation of them."
Keywords:
complaint; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1438
79th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was denied a further extension of the period in which he was entitled to claim the refund of removal expenses. The Tribunal considers that "in accordance with its case law, [it] will not substitute its own views for those of the director-general in a matter in which he has discretion."
Keywords:
case law; discretion; executive head; judicial review; new time limit; refund; removal expenses; time limit;
Judgment 1417
78th Session, 1995
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
In accordance with Article 11(1) of its Rules the Tribunal invites the International Civil Service Commission "by the present order to make any further submissions in answer to the complainants' claims [...] that it considers necessary. It will allow the Commission thirty days in which to do so."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11(1) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
additional written submissions; icsc statute; iloat statute; interlocutory order; time limit;
Judgment 1413
78th Session, 1995
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[The complainant's] claim to a higher grade is irreceivable. Even if her career did suffer delay she may not seek redress on that account in the context of the choice of career path; nor may she impugn any decision that she failed to challenge in time or object to her grading as administrative assistant."
Keywords:
assignment; career; complaint; delay; post classification; promotion; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1408
78th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The decision not to allow the abatement of internal tax had a continuing effect which was reflected in each of the complainant's payslips."
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; payslip; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 1404
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant appealed to the Headquarters Appeals Board before the Regional Board had issued its report. "The complainant's own behaviour affected the regional proceedings and made for delay in the Regional Board's report and recommendation to the Regional Director. Not to be ignored either is the effect of the change in membership, which fell within the time allotted for hearing the case. On the evidence the complainant has failed to show that the Board did not intend to report within a reasonable time."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; composition of the internal appeals body; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; time limit;
Judgment 1393
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"There is no reason of public policy why an organisation should not entertain a claim, even when it is premature, pending the notification of an individual decision. That is the approach that the EPO took when, instead of warning the complainant forthwith that his appeal was premature, it entertained his claims - just as it entertained all the others - and forwarded them, after what it described as preliminary study, to the Appeals Committee. So it was in breach of good faith in objecting to receivability before the Committee at a time when the time limits set off by its individual decisions had already run out. The Tribunal accordingly holds that under the circumstances the complainant is right to plead that he was caught in a procedural trap."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; date; general decision; good faith; individual decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 7
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1279, consideration 9.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1279
Keywords:
case law; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Consistent rulings by the Tribunal make it plain that the act which is challengeable and so sets off the time limit will ordinarily be some individual decision notified to the staff member. Only that decision affords him unquestionable and final notice that the time limit is set off and that he will have to act if he wants to assert his rights."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 323, 398, 624, 625, 626, 902, 963, 1081, 1101, 1134, 1148
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; date of notification; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 | next >
|
