Time bar (117,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Time bar
Total judgments found: 219
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 1230
74th Session, 1993
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The defendant maintains that the complainant did not meet the two-month time limit for lodging appeals and failed to exhaust the internal means of redress. The Committee was of the view that, in this case, exceptional circumstances warranted waiving the time limit and allowing the appeal. The defendant contends that the Committee's decision was not binding on the Agency. "Only where the Committee's appraisal of the circumstances is flagrantly wrong or based on plainly mistaken facts may the Director General disregard it, and even then his decision will be subject to review by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
condition; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1181
73rd Session, 1992
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complaint raises a question of receivability. Under Article 43 (1) of the Staff Regulations an internal appeal must be lodged within thirty days of the date on which a decision was notified. The complainant pleads that he made a material mistake by reading the thirty days as one calendar month. "Time limits for internal appeals must be strictly complied with. The complainant failed to abide by the Staff Regulations, and the mistake he supposedly made is irrelevant because the organization did not seek to mislead him. Since he has not exhausted the internal means of redress, his complaint is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 43 OF THE INTERPOL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
date of notification; delay; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1172
73rd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the decision was ultra vires and, that being so, there is no time bar. He is mistaken. Lack of authority may be a reason for quashing a decision, but is not a reason for treating it as null and void. Provided that a text purports to be a decision, whoever may have taken it, it is challengeable in accordance with the set procedure."
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; procedure before the tribunal; time bar;
Judgment 1140
72nd Session, 1992
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The time limit for filing a complaint must be strictly respected and may be waived neither by the parties nor by the Tribunal: a heavy workload affords no valid excuse for failing to meet it. Since the complainant failed to lodge a timely complaint with the Tribunal [...] his claim became time- barred."
Keywords:
complaint; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1132
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The case law makes it clear that time limits in rules on internal appeals must be strictly adhered to. The complainant did not comply with the requirements of the Service Regulations. Nor can he show any breach of good faith on the organisation's part. His complaint is therefore irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute because he has failed to exhaust the internal means of redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
exception; good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1122
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainants want the Tribunal to set aside all the decisions that applied the "Eurocontrol reduction" to their salaries after 12 November 1987. To avoid the time bar, they rely on the emergence of a new fact, namely Judgment 1012, which quashed the decision to lower pay by 0.7 per cent before that date. "That judgment is final and has the authority of res judicata, including the ruling in it that certain claims are irreceivable. On no account may it be treated as a new fact setting off a new time limit for filing a complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1012
Keywords:
adjustment; complaint; exception; judgment of the tribunal; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; res judicata; salary; time bar;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complaints are challenging pay slips [reflecting the so-called 'Eurocontrol reduction'], of which the latest date back to September 1989, and they were filed on 27 August 1990, long after the time limits had expired." They are irreceivable.
Keywords:
adjustment; complaint; payslip; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1106
71st Session, 1991
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute a complaint will not be receivable unless filed within ninety days of the date of notification of the impugned decision, and Article 6(3) of the Rules of Court says that the 'date of despatch' of the complaint shall alone be taken into account." The complainant got notification of the impugned decision on 7 March 1990. Having waited until 6 June 1990 to post his complaint, he ran over the time limit by one day: the complaint is time-barred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Time limits are a matter of objective fact. "If that were not so - whatever considerations of equity there might be - there could be no certainty in legal relations between the parties, and such certainty is the whole point and purpose of the time bar. An exception might be allowed only if the organization had acted in bad faith and misled the official. But in this case the organization did not."
Keywords:
complaint; exception; good faith; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1096
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A complaint is receivable under Article VII(3) where the administration fails to take any decision upon the claim within sixty days of the date of notification of it. Once an organisation has accepted the Tribunal's Statute it may not derogate from Article VII(3) by dint of internal rules of its own. The only difference Eurocontrol's own Staff Regulations may make is that it is estopped from objecting to receivability when, in reliance on its own time limit, a staff member has filed a complaint that would be receivable under its Staff Regulations but out of time under Article VII." (See also Judgment 1095.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1095
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; difference; failure to answer claim; good faith; iloat statute; precedence of rules; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1095
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"A complaint is receivable under Article VII(3) where the administration fails to take any decision upon the claim within sixty days of the date of notification of it. Once an organisation has accepted the Tribunal's Statute it may not derogate from Article VII(3) by dint of internal rules of its own. The only difference Eurocontrol's own Staff Regulations may make is that it is estopped from objecting to receivability when, in reliance on its own time limit, a staff member has filed a complaint that would be receivable under its Staff Regulations but out of time under Article VII."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; difference; failure to answer claim; good faith; iloat statute; precedence of rules; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1091
70th Session, 1991
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's appeal against delays in the procedure to regrade his post was rejected by a decision of 10 October 1989. The decision was confirmed in a memorandum of 4 December 1989. The time limit for appeal to the Tribunal ran from 10 October. The complaint having been filed on 2 March 1990 it is time-barred.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1086
70th Session, 1991
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
In keeping with the Flemming principle and to make up for the end-of-service allowance paid to employees in Austria's private sector, general service staff at the IAEA, whose headquarters are in Vienna, got a percentage increase in gross salary from 1972 to 1987. As from 1987 the Agency brought in a system comparable to the one in Austrian enterprises. The complainants object to the IAEA's discounting service up to 1972 in reckoning the allowance. The Tribunal holds that by providing for a non-retroactive increase in applicable salary the Agency took a decision which had become final and that by replacing a system in force since 1972 by another was not in breach of any acquired right. No matter which method it followed, the Agency had complied with the Flemming principle.
Keywords:
compensatory measure; flemming principle; increase; non-retroactivity; salary; terminal entitlements; terms of appointment; time bar;
Judgment 1068
70th Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4, Summary
Extract:
The complainant received a termination indemnity under Article 11.6 of the ILO Staff Regulations (indemnity upon reduction of staff). She claims a more generous one under Article 11.16 (agreed termination). The indemnity under dispute was mentioned in an agreement signed in 1977, which the Tribunal recognised as valid in Judgment 404 of 24 April 1980. Besides, her entitlements were paid in full on 24 January 1979. Her claim of 20 December 1988 is therefore time- barred under Article 14.8 and also irreceivable under the res judicata rule.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 11.6 AND 11.16 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
agreed termination; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; terminal entitlements; time bar;
Consideration 3, Summary
Extract:
By a letter of 20 December 1988 the complainant asked the Director-General to pay her three months' salary based on an offer made to her on 23 October 1981. Her claim was nowhere near being in time according to the time limit set in Article 14.8 of the Staff Regulations. The organisation's failure to pay her has no effect on the time limit.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 14.8 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
exception; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 1039
69th Session, 1990
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant lodged two internal appeals against the decision not to renew her appointment. Her first appeal, which she submitted directly to the Board, was irreceivable because under paragraph 7(a) she ought first to have addressed her claim to the Director-General. The second appeal, which she did address to the Director-General, was out of time by one day. There having been no waiver of the time limit under paragraph 8 of the Statutes, her complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPHS 7(A) AND 8 OF THE STATUTES OF THE UNESCO APPEALS BOARD
Keywords:
formal requirements; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1011
68th Session, 1990
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
To take account of shifts in currency rates when reckoning the pay of officials who changed categories on promotion, the ITU began to follow United Nations practice by adopting in 1988 the so-called "anniversary calculation" system. The complainant, who was promoted in 1985 from grade G.7 to P.2, is seeking to have her pay so reviewed. On 28 January 1986 she wrote to the chief of personnel objecting to the loss of salary she suffered as a result of promotion. On 26 May 1988 she appealed to the Appeal Board. The Tribunal holds that the memorandum of 28 January 1986 cannot be construed either in form or in substance as a request for review under Rule 11.1.2 but was merely a written claim under Rule 3.17.1. Her appeal of 26 May 1988 was patently out of time and the complaint is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: RULES 3.17.1 AND 11.1.1.2 OF THE ITU STAFF REGULATIONS AND STAFF RULES
Keywords:
consequence; formal requirements; general service category; internal appeal; professional category; promotion; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary; time bar;
Judgment 1010
68th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant's internal appeal against termination after the extension of his probation is time-barred. He argues "that an unregistered letter from someone other than the Director-General cannot constitute proper notice of dismissal or of extension of probation. [The] plea fails [...]. Provided that the staff member is given official notice of a decision the time limit starts to run and there is no need for special procedural formalities. And the absence of the Director-General's signature can have no effect on the time limit for appeal even though it may in some circumstances warrant setting the decision aside."
Keywords:
consequence; decision; flaw; formal flaw; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1005
68th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant claimed the benefit of a decision delivered on 12 December 1986 (Judgment 792). She got notice of the organisation's final decision to refuse her claim in a letter dated 26 February 1988. But she failed to challenge that decision within the ninety-day limit laid down in Article VII(2) of the Statute. So her complaint is time-barred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; enforcement; judgment of the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 997
68th Session, 1990
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As the Tribunal held in Judgment 647, provided a communication takes the form of a decision, its lawfulness is immaterial for the purpose of lodging an appeal." In the circumstances of the case the complainant's internal appeal against a decision requiring him to take home leave before a specified date was time-barred. The complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 647
Keywords:
consequence; decision; flaw; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 978
66th Session, 1989
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"None of the interveners is barred by any lapse of time from claiming entitlement to the non-resident's allowance and to the other benefits. [...] Acquiescence is not a valid plea open to the organization and a woman staff member may at any time object to discriminatory treatment."
Keywords:
allowance; continuing breach; equal treatment; intervention; non-resident allowance; receivability of the complaint; sex discrimination; time bar;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Since the rule was unlawful it could never become lawful by lapse of time or by acquiescence and a claim could therefore never be barred. Even though a claim to actual payment of the non-resident's allowance cannot succeed in these proceedings because of the complainant's failure to follow the proper internal procedure, the question of her entitlement to the allowance must be considered because of its bearing on the matter of the recurrent benefits."
Keywords:
allowance; continuing breach; flaw; non-resident allowance; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; time bar;
Judgment 977
66th Session, 1989
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Having made his 13.1 request for review on 7 October 1987, the complainant submitted a 'complaint' under 13.2 on 8 April 1988. The lodging of the 13.1 request and the substance of it show that the complainant had become aware of the 'treatment complained of' over six months before he lodged his 'complaint', and it was therefore out of time under 13.2."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 13.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS;
ARTICLE 13.2 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
date of notification; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 960
66th Session, 1989
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organisation argues that the complainant's internal appeal against the application of the amended scale of pensionable remuneration was time-barred. The plea fails. The Tribunal holds that "although [the complainant] must have known for over two years that amending the scale would have consequences when she left she could not know what the financial consequences would be."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; consequence; decision; internal appeal; pension; pensionable remuneration; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; retirement; scale; separation from service; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
