Start of time limit (116,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Start of time limit
Total judgments found: 62
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 607
52nd Session, 1984
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The organisation contends that the complainant, who knew that his contract had expired, had no reason to expect to be notified of its non-renewal. He should therefore have challenged the decision not to renew, which was implicit in the expiry of his appointment, in time. "To allow [the organisation's] plea would enable its competent officers to resolve to deal with such questions only if they thought fit. That would make for an increase in the number of claims dealt with ex gratia on the grounds that they had not been lodged on expiry of the appointment, and so administration would become arbitrary."
Keywords:
contract; fixed-term; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 5
Extract:
On questions of principle, the Tribunal holds that "a staff member whose fixed-term appointment has expired may not be declared out of time so long as his former employer has not informed him of the non-renewal. Normally, the non-renewal will be an explicit decision. Only where a staff member has expressly applied for renewal will rejection of his application be implied on the expiry of the time limits set".
Keywords:
condition; contract; express decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 603
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant's "later discovery that the administration's decision might have been unlawful does not affect the time limit, which is an objective matter of fact and starts on the date on which the impugned decision was notified. Any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the stability of the parties' position in law, which is the purpose and indeed the whole point of setting a time limit. The only exception is where the organisation has misled the complainant and is therefore in breach of good faith."
Keywords:
consequence; date of notification; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 602
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Vide Judgment 603, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 603
Keywords:
consequence; date of notification; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 575
51st Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"No doubt the complainant did not notice until March 1982 the inequality of treatment which she pleads. But according to [...] the Service Regulations the [three-month] time limit for filing the appeal in this case began at the date on which the impugned decision was notified to her [July 1981], not at the later date on which she became aware of the alleged inequality."
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
Judgment 544
50th Session, 1983
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The decision not to renew the complainant's appointment was notified to him more than ninety days before the date on which he filed the complaint. "However [...] he made a request [...] for the institution of disciplinary proceedings to dispel the suspicion which he believed he was under; and [...] he [subsequently] appealed to the Director-General against the failure to convince the Disciplinary Board. His ultimate purpose [...] was to have the decision of non-renewal set aside; in other words to challenge it." It would be unduly formalistic to make the time limit run from the date of the decision not to renew his appointment was notified.
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; disciplinary procedure; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; start of time limit;
Judgment 522
49th Session, 1982
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
For the jurisdiction of the Appeals Board to be waived, Staff Rules require the Director-General's consent, and no time limit is prescribed for his decision. "The just solution may be that, provided that the complainant is not dilatory in applying for the consent of the Director-General, time does not begin to run until after the Director-General has communicated his decision."
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; request by a party; start of time limit;
Judgment 493
48th Session, 1982
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The organisation's argument is that the time limit for filing the complaint started on [the date] the complainant's contract was extended [...]. The argument would succeed only if the later decisions [...] had merely confirmed the [extension] decision. But they did not. The extension of the contract [on the mentioned date] for three months did not necessarily mean that there would be no further extension."
Keywords:
complaint; contract; date; date of notification; decision; extension of contract; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
Judgment 478
47th Session, 1982
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant's first claim was rejected. In his reply to the second, which was based on the same cause of action as the first, "the Director, who had carried out no further inquiry, merely confirmed his earlier position. The [second] decision [...] was therefore purely confirmatory in character and did not give rise to any new time limit." As the time limit was not extended, the appeal is time-barred.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 456
46th Session, 1981
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
The ninety-day time limit set in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal will run from the date of expiry of the sixty-day time limit set in paragraph 3. The text of Article VII, paragraph 3, expressly provides for the addition of the two time limits and thus renders irreceivable any complaint filed after the expiry of the 150 days.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 404
43rd Session, 1980
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organisation argues that the second decision under challenge merely upheld the former, that the time limit must therefore be calculated from the date of the first decision (3 October). "In fact the decision of 18 December does not merely confirm the earlier one: it rejects the complainant's application for referral of her case to the Joint Committee and thus bars resort to an internal means of redress. Whether the time limit should run from 3 October or 18 December is therefore a matter of some doubt. It may remain unsettled [...] since the complainant's pleas are manifestly without substance."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; date of notification; decision; internal appeal; organisation; refusal; start of time limit;
Judgment 364
41st Session, 1978
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Time runs from the latest effective decision. If it has run out from that decision, it does not begin to run again from a later decision which does no more than affirm the earlier one."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; date of notification; decision; new time limit; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 333
40th Session, 1978
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant appealed to the Director-General within the time limit for disputed claims. The Director-General dismissed her appeal by a letter which was not merely confirmatory. The complaint impugning that decision was filed within the time limit and is therefore receivable.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 305
38th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"According to Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal a complaint shall not be receivable unless the internal means of redress have been exhausted and the complaint was filed within ninety days after the notification of the impugned decision. Hence only a final decision may prompt a complaint and the period of ninety days runs from the date of notification."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"It is immaterial that in its report [...] the Appeals Committee declared itself competent and so apparently overlooked [the provision which excludes appeals against the decision in question]. It is for the Tribunal to see whether Article VII of its own Statute is applicable: that means that in particular it must determine, with reference to the [organisation's] rules, the date on which the internal body of last instance took its decision and from which the ninety-day period therefore began to run."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; date; decision; internal appeals body; judicial review; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
Judgment 298
38th Session, 1977
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"[E]ven if recourse to a national court, which does not have jurisdiction, might be regarded as postponing the time limit for appeal to the Tribunal, which does have jurisdiction, such an appeal may properly be lodged in accordance with the Tribunal's Statute only within ninety days after notification of the national court's decision that it is not competent [...]." [In the instant case that time limit was not observed.]
Keywords:
complaint; municipal court; new time limit; start of time limit; time bar;
Judgment 279
37th Session, 1976
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
According to paragraph 3 of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal, "where the complainant alleges failure to take a decision, or an implied decision to dismiss his appeal, the period of ninety days shall run from the expiration of the sixty days allowed for the taking of the decision by the administration."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; failure to answer claim; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 196
29th Session, 1972
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The appeal addressed to the Director-General was dismissed on 15 April. Whatever the date of the impugned decision, "the complainant could properly file an appeal as from 15 April [...] and consequently the claims he submitted to the Appeals Board on 27 April [...] were receivable. [H]ence the argument that the appeal was irreceivable affords no grounds for contending that the internal means of resisting the decision were not exhausted."
Keywords:
date; decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 186
27th Session, 1971
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
Under the applicable provisions, "the period within which an appeal must be submitted against any administrative decision affecting [...] officials [of the organization] starts to run from the date of notification of the decision to the persons concerned." The rejection of the appeal for being time-barred is not flawed.
Keywords:
date; date of notification; decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar;
Judgment 165
25th Session, 1970
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
When first appointed in March 1952, the complainant was not enrolled in the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. Although this decision was not at the time notified, it was confirmed and notified by the letter of January 1957 which informed the complainant that he would become a member of the pension fund from the following month. The date of receipt of that letter was the date at which the statutory period began to run for the lodging of an appeal. Filed in November 1968, the appeal was time-barred and the dismissing of the appeal was not tainted with illegality.
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; forfeiture of benefit; internal appeal; participation; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; unjspf;
Judgment 164
25th Session, 1970
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
When first appointed in May 1951, the complainant was not enrolled in the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. Although this decision was not at the time notified, it was confirmed and notified by the letter of January 1957 which informed the complainant that he would become a member of the pension fund from the following month. The date of receipt of that letter was the date at which the statutory period began to run for the lodging of an appeal. Filed in November 1968, the appeal was time-barred and the dismissing of the appeal was not tainted with illegality.
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; forfeiture of benefit; internal appeal; participation; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; unjspf;
Judgment 123
20th Session, 1968
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
One copy of the impugned decision arrived at the usual home address of the complainant on 27 June; a second copy arrived at his business address on 28 June. "[B]y sending two copies of its decision the [organisation] sought to ensure that at least one of them would reach its destination. It therefore admitted that if one copy were to go a stray the time limit of 90 days would run from the date of receipt of the second." The complainant might have kept only one of the two copies, that which arrived on 28 June. "[I]t is consonant with the rules of good faith to hold that the time limit began to run from 28 June, and [...] that the complaint is receivable."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; good faith; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
