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
Judgment 200
30th Session, 1973
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant made no appeal within the time limit against the decision to confirm his transfer. "That decision has thus become final." He did impugn another decision in time which had no connection with the first decision, but that will not extend the period within which an appeal may be lodged against the first decision.
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; 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 185
27th Session, 1971
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The regional administration failed to reply because it made a reply conditional on a matter unrelated to the request. "The position thus taken up by the administration misled [the complainant] and prevented him from following the procedure laid down [in the Staff Rules]. There is all the more reason for taking account of his error inasmuch as the [...] Rules do not mention the general rule of law [...] whereby the silence of the administration after a certain period is equivalent to rejection of a claim."
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; failure to answer claim; implied decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; negligence; organisation; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 181
27th Session, 1971
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he Director-General was at fault in ruling that the complainant's appeal to the Appeals Board was time-barred [...]. The decision impugned must accordingly be quashed." The case is referred back to the organization for a decision on the merits.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; decision quashed; further submissions on the merits; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; reply confined to receivability; time bar; tribunal;
Consideration 4
Extract:
If the time limit had expired, "the Director-General could indeed have refused to consider the complainant's protest. However, the ruling given [...] on his instructions makes no reference to the expiry of the time limit. Failure to observe a time limit laid down by the [applicable provision] is not [a flaw] which can be pleaded at a later stage in the procedure."
Keywords:
flaw; internal appeal; mistaken hearing of merits; procedural flaw; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 180
27th Session, 1971
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The prescribed time limit must be held to have been observed if a complaint [...] has been filed with [the Tribunal] late, but was sent within the period of 90 days to the Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations. This interpretation is justified because of the links between the international organisations, and in particular by the fact that some staff members" fall within the jurisdiction of the latter Tribunal in matters concerning their pension rights.
Keywords:
complaint; exception; iloat; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; remand; time bar; unat;
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 147
23rd Session, 1970
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Although a provision of the Staff Rules allows the Appeals Board "in exceptional cases [to] waive the time-limit, the fact [...] that [the complainant], as a result of a mistake committed in good faith, addressed himself directly to the Administrative Tribunal, was not regarded by the [...] Appeals Board as an exceptional circumstance covered by the above-mentioned provision."
Keywords:
direct appeal to tribunal; exception; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 108
17th Session, 1967
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The fact that the Director-General had not given a ruling in accordance with [the material provision] could be regarded as failure to take a decision on a claim, thus entitling complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal under Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute. [However] the complainant would have had to file his complaint with the Administrative Tribunal within the 90 days following the 60 days during which the Director-General failed to give a ruling on his claim [...]. [He] is obviously time-barred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Once the complainant did not ask for a hearing within the [...] time limit provided for [under the material provision], the appeal which he later instituted [...] was not receivable [...]. Consequently [...] insofar as it sought to resist the Director-General's decision to accept the opinion of the Appeals Board recognising that it was irreceivable the complaint is unfounded and must be dismissed."
Keywords:
internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
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 81
14th Session, 1965
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant is attempting to deduce rights from clauses to which her husband could not have had recourse [...] the decisions relating to the application of the new pensions scheme were not contested by [the person concerned] within the period of 90 days prescribed by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, and these decisions, which thus became final in regard to [the person concerned], had the effect of irrevocably altering, before the date of his death, both the terms of his contract of appointment and the provisions of the regulations applicable in his case" - the person concerned could not, immediately before his death, have invoked in his favour the regulations in question. Nor is the complainant entitled to do so now.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; enforcement; receivability of the complaint; successor; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 80
14th Session, 1965
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Decisions of a general nature "could be contested before the Tribunal only within the period of 90 days specified in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal [...]. The said decisions were not contested within the required time; they became final so far as the complainant is concerned and irrevocably modified, prior to the date on which her pension rights were settled, both the terms of her contract of appointment and the regulations applicable in her case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint; general decision; pension; pension entitlements; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; 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 55
9th Session, 1961
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the complaint was not filed within the time limit provided for under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, it is not receivable. "It is to no purpose that the complainant alleges that she was unaware of the conditions under which she had access to the Tribunal, since she had been provided with a copy of the Staff Rules of the organization, articles [...] of which make provision both for access to the Tribunal and for the availability of the Statute of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; duty to inform; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 40
8th Session, 1960
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal is bound by the time limit of 90 days laid down for the lodging of complaints in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. "Article 18 of the Rules of court authorises the Tribunal to extend only those time limits provided in the Rules and not those provided in the Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 18 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; enforcement; exception; iloat statute; 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;
Judgment 26
6th Session, 1957
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complaint is tardy and irreceivable. The complainant, recruited for one month, suffered an accident. "The [...] organization has offered, and maintained its offer in the course of the oral proceedings, to pay the complainant [a] sum [...] amounting to six weeks' salary in fulfillment of its obligations to the complainant. Notwithstanding the fact that the complaint is irreceivable [...], the Tribunal, [...] noting that such payment is offered to the complainant [by the organization], rejects the complaint."
Keywords:
acceptance; compensation; complaint; offer; organisation; professional accident; receivability of the complaint; service-incurred; time bar; tribunal;
Judgment 21
5th Session, 1955
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration on receivability
Extract:
"Whereas the complaint was not submitted within the period of time of 90 days provided in the Regulations running from the date on which the decision impugned was taken [...], such was due to the transfer of the complainant to hospital [...] the complainant could only take cognizance of this decision at the conclusion of her hospitalization [...]. She brought her complaint in due form within ninety days from that date [...]. The organization does not [...] plead non-receivability following the late notification of the complaint; the delay is clearly due to vis major".
Keywords:
complaint; exception; force majeure; health reasons; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 16
5th Session, 1955
International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration (D)
Extract:
"In strict law, the complainant was entitled to receive the indemnity provided for [...] but [...] her complaint submitted today is clearly out of time [...]. The Tribunal expresses however the wish that, respecting equity, the [organisation] accord to the complainant the indemnity provided for" [the Tribunal declares that in law, the action is unfounded and dismisses the claims of the complainant.]
Keywords:
complaint; equity; exception; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
|
