Ratione temporis (700,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Ratione temporis
Total judgments found: 4

• Judgment 4741

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.

  Considerations 11-12

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal already recalled in Judgment 1734, consideration 3, with regard to Staff Rule VI 1.02, the very provision on which this dispute turns, emphasising the following:
  “VI 1.02 is quite plain. An internal appeal being ruled out, [the complainant] should have thought of filing a complaint against non-renewal. If he could not understand the article on his own, he was free to get advice.”
  It follows that, under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, since the complainant did not file her complaint within 90 days of the Organisation’s decision not to renew or extend her fixed-term contract, it is also irreceivable from that standpoint. The Tribunal has recalled on many occasions that, “[w]ith respect to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal’s case law requires strict adherence to the ninety-day time limit on the grounds that time limits are an objective matter of fact and that strict adherence is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions” (see Judgments 4354, consideration 7, 3947, consideration 5, and 3559, consideration 3).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 3559, 3947, 4354
  

  Keywords:

  interpretation; interpretation of rules; non-renewal of contract; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4581

  
  135th Session, 2023
  International Cocoa Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the amount paid to him by way of a termination indemnity.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Considerations 5-6

  Extract:

  The ICCO submits that as relations between the parties began and ended before the ICCO had recognized the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the Tribunal is not competent to hear this case. It is noteworthy that it was on 20 August 2019 that the Executive Director of the ICCO sent a request for recognition of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the Director-General of the International Labour Office. At its 337th Session, the ILO’s Governing Body approved that recognition with effect from 30 October 2019.
  Under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, the Tribunal may hear a complaint only when the international organization concerned has addressed a declaration recognizing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to the ILO’s Director-General and that declaration has been approved by the ILO’s Governing Body. Inasmuch as the ICCO had recognized the Tribunal’s jurisdiction at the time when the complainant filed his complaint on 10 December 2019, the Tribunal is competent to hear it pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute.

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; confirmatory decision; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4141

  
  128th Session, 2019
  Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the CTA to reject his proposal to negotiate an agreed termination of his employment contract.

  Considerations 2, 3, 4

  Extract:

  The CTA, which withdrew its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by a decision of its Executive Board of 23 March 2018 that was notified to the Director-General of the ILO by a letter of the same date, submits that the Tribunal is therefore not competent to rule on the present complaint. According to the CTA, which had at the same time provided that disputes between itself and its staff members would henceforth be resolved by a new tribunal established at the CTA, its withdrawal from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction took immediate effect and therefore precludes the Tribunal from considering the aforementioned complaint, registered on 13 August 2018, since it was filed subsequent to the withdrawal.
  However, as under Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal the recognition by an international organization of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is subject to the approval of the Governing Body of the ILO, the principle of parallelism of form requires that the withdrawal of recognition of jurisdiction should also be subject, before taking effect, to a discussion by the same body. As the Tribunal has previously found, it can only be bound, when an organization decides to withdraw from its jurisdiction, when it has been notified of the ILO Governing Body’s deliberations taking note of such a decision (see Judgment 1043, consideration 3).
  In the present case, it was only on 30 October 2018 that the ILO Governing Body considered the withdrawal by the CTA of its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1043
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4055

  
  126th Session, 2018
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his request for the payment of an education allowance for his daughter.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The complaint is clearly irreceivable. As the President’s final decision [...] was not impugned before the Tribunal within the time limit established by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, its lawfulness became immune from challenge. In these circumstances, the EPO rightly rejected the complainant’s request to reopen the case. It follows that the complaint is clearly irreceivable and must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article 7 of the Rules; Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint; time limit;