|
|
 |
|
|
Mandatory time limit (112,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Mandatory time limit
Total judgments found: 11
Judgment 4850
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to inform; loss of opportunity; mandatory time limit; medical opinion; notification; termination of employment for health reasons;
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 2473
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Organization contends that since the impugned decision was notified to the complainant on 21 November 2003, he should have filed his complaint with the Tribunal, according to Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, within ninety days after the date of notification, that is to say by 19 February 2004 at the latest and not in July 2004 as was the case.
Contrary to the defendant's allegation, the complainant asserts that he received the decision dated 21 November 2003 only on 28 April 2004 following a request he made to the Director-General on 15 April 2004. Since the defendant, which bears the burden of proof in this respect, has not proved that the notification actually occurred on 21 November 2003, the Tribunal must accept the date of 28 April 2004 indicated on the note transmitting a copy of the impugned decision to the complainant, and it will therefore consider that the complaint he filed on 26 July 2004 fell within the required time limit."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Keywords:
burden of proof; complainant; complaint; date; date of notification; decision; executive head; iloat; iloat statute; information note; lack of evidence; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2003
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainants did not challenge the initial decisions denying them an installation grant and therefore "those decisions became final and the complainants were barred from challenging them by filling up application forms years later and claiming the quashing of the decisions refusing them by implication the allowance for which their assignment to Maastricht made them eligible. The Joint Committee for Disputes was right to cite the principle of legal certainty which must govern relations between an organisation and its staff' and to note that it was not possible to [exempt] the persons concerned from the time bar, which the Tribunal is in any event bound to apply since it is mandatory'."
Keywords:
binding character; decision; effective date; exception; iloat statute; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; 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 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 259
35th Session, 1975
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 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 59
10th Session, 1962
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"It is not within the competence of the Tribunal to enlarge the period of 90 days which Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal lays down as the period within which a decision complained of can be appealed and the [complaint] must be dismissed as time-barred and irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; mandatory time limit; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 31
7th Session, 1958
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The time limits for the submission of complaints provided for in the Statute of the Tribunal are mandatory, and [...] the Tribunal must ensure that they are respected."
Keywords:
complaint; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
|
|
|
|
|
