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 3973
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was dismissed for misconduct, impugns the Director General’s final decision endorsing the Global Board of Appeal’s recommendation to dismiss his appeal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; summary procedure; time bar;
Judgment 3965
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that the EPO did not properly address or investigate his claim of harassment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The President’s decision, communicated by the letter of 13 October 2009, was based on the Ombudsman’s comments, which did not comply with Article 11 of Circular No. 286, and the decision itself did not correspond to what Article 12 of the Circular required. Most importantly, the decision of 13 October 2009 did not clearly reject the complainant’s harassment complaint or determine any other course of action on it. The complainant was therefore not only deprived of his right to have his complaint dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules, but was also misled as to the possibilities of challenging a decision. Accordingly, the decision of 13 October 2009 must be set aside. As this decision was ambiguous and misleading, the filing of the internal appeal on 19 April 2010 comes within the scope of the exceptions that the Tribunal has established for accepting a late internal appeal (see, for example, Judgments 1466, consideration 5, 2722, consideration 3, and 3406, consideration 13). To the extent that the IAC’s majority opinion and the impugned decision of the President were based on the argument that the appeal was irreceivable, they are tainted with an error of law and the impugned decision of 14 February 2012 will therefore be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 3406
Keywords:
exception; internal appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3947
125th Session, 2018
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to terminate his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 5
Extract:
With 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. It was relevantly stated in Judgment 3559, consideration 3, that:
“Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”. It is not within the competence of the Tribunal to extend this period of time set forth by the Statute. As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, this time limit is an objective matter of fact and the Tribunal will not entertain a complaint filed after it has expired. Any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations, which is the very justification for the time bar. The ninety-day period begins to run on the day following the date of notification of the impugned decision. Where the ninetieth day falls on a public holiday, the period is extended until the next business day (see Judgments 2250, under 8, 3393, under 1, and 3467, under 2).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3559
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3926
125th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was recruited on 15 May 2000 as a student air traffic controller, challenges the application of provisions adopted after his recruitment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confirmatory decision; internal remedies exhausted; time bar;
Judgment 3914
125th Session, 2018
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his project-based fixed-term contract.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the clause in the complainant’s contract relevantly states: “Your attention is drawn to Staff Rules 114.3 and 114.5, which [...] provide for the maximum time-periods within which you may request a review of, or appeal, the terms and conditions of your recruitment.” The complainant did not contest the subjection of his contract to the Short-Term Staff Rules until he raised it in his request for review dated 22 December 2014 and subsequently in his internal appeal. The Tribunal therefore holds that the JAB and the Director General correctly concluded that this claim was then time-barred.
Keywords:
time bar;
Judgment 3911
125th Session, 2018
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Precedent [...] has it that where a staff member fails to challenge an appraisal report by lodging an internal appeal against it within the stipulated time, the report becomes final and may not be called into question, even with regard to its lawfulness (see, for example, Judgments 3059, under 7, and 3666, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3059, 3666
Keywords:
performance report; time bar;
Judgment 3891
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants impugn the final decision of the EPO Administrative Council rejecting their requests for review of the Council’s decision CA/D 10/14.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; correction of complaint; summary procedure; time bar;
Considerations 3 and 4
Extract:
The complaints were filed within the time frame set forth by Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, but required some correction. The Registrar called upon the complainants to correct them within a period of time set in accordance with Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules. However, the complainants missed the deadline for corrections and filed their submissions late without any explanation. They did not avail themselves of the possibility of requesting an extension of the time limit for the corrections.
As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3556, under 7, “[u]nless the complaint is corrected (that is, rendered conformable with the Rules) within the extended period [...] notified by the Registrar, then it remains deficient”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute ; Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3556
Keywords:
correction of complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3869
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3847
124th Session, 2017
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In both complaints, the complainant contests the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In Judgment 3311, considerations 5 and 6, the Tribunal observed that the time limits for internal appeal procedures and the time limits in the Tribunal’s Statute serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way and that the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time. The consistently stated principle that time limits must be strictly adhered to has been rationalized by the Tribunal in the following terms: time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions. An inefficacious system could potentially adversely affect the staff of international organisations. Flexibility about time limits should not intrude into the Tribunal’s decision-making even if it might be thought to be equitable or fair in a particular case to allow some flexibility. To do otherwise would “impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations”. There are exceptions to this general approach, none of which is applicable to the present matter (see Judgment 2722, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2722, 3311
Keywords:
time bar;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The question whether the first complaint is receivable turns on whether, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article VII of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complainant filed it within the stipulated ninety days following the decision not to extend her contract. The principle of good faith dealings which applies to the relations between international civil servants and the organisations that employ them prevents a staff member from thwarting timely notification by her or his conduct. Accordingly, in considerations 11 and 12 of Judgment 2152 the Tribunal stated as follows [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2152
Keywords:
good faith; notification; time bar;
Judgment 3833
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he complainant cannot rely on a challenge to her pay slip [...] to dispute the lawfulness of an individual decision that has become final (see Judgment 2823, under 10, and [...]Judgment 3614, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2823, 3614
Keywords:
late appeal; time bar;
Judgment 3735
123rd Session, 2017
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to recognise her illness as “possibly related” to the service-incurred injuries which she sustained on previous occasions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; service-incurred; time bar;
Judgment 3716
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s rejection of his challenge to a decision of the Council.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; correction of complaint; summary procedure; time bar;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Since the complainant has not [...] corrected his complaint as required by [...] Article 6, paragraph 2, [of the Tribunal's Rules], it is clearly irreceivable [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules
Keywords:
correction of complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3710
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In his six complaints, the complainant seeks to impugn the decisions to reject his internal appeals.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Given that none of the corrections requested [by the Registrar] were made by the complainant within the stipulated time limits, as required by [...] Article 6 [paragraph 2 of the Tribunal's Rules], the present six complaints are clearly irreceivable [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Rules
Keywords:
correction of complaint; time bar;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; correction of complaint; joinder; summary procedure; time bar;
Judgment 3708
122nd Session, 2016
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was summarily dismissed, impugns the Director General’s final decision endorsing the Joint Administrative Review Board’s recommendation to reject his appeal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; summary procedure; time bar;
Judgment 3707
122nd Session, 2016
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the final decision, taken in light of the report of the Joint Advisory Appeals Board, on his grievance concerning his performance evaluation for the period 2012 to 2013.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; summary procedure; time bar;
Judgment 3681
122nd Session, 2016
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his position and to terminate his contract, as well as the compensation that was awarded to him in consequence thereof.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; time bar;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complaint is directed against an e-mail of 30 August 2012 in which the defendant reminded the complainant of the decision of 5 July 2012 providing him with a breakdown of his termination entitlements. However, this e-mail did not constitute a new decision as it merely confirmed the decision of 5 July. Hence, the dispatch of this e-mail did not re-open the time limit for appealing against the [contested] decision [...] (see Judgment 2790, under 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2790
Keywords:
final decision; time bar;
Judgment 3675
122nd Session, 2016
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests IOM’s decision to abolish his post and not to renew his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was notified of the decision to reject his Action Prior to the Lodging of an Appeal as time-barred by an e-mail dated 19 September 2013, which is not only shown to have been opened that same day but was also expressly acknowledged as read by the complainant in his e-mail of 23 September 2013. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal’s case law, the date of notification of the decision to reject his Action Prior to the Lodging of an Appeal as time-barred was 19 September 2013, when he received the decision by e-mail, and not 4 October 2013, when he claims to have received the hard copy of the 19 September decision (see Judgments 2966, consideration 8, and 3351, considerations 13 to 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2966, 3351
Keywords:
notification; time bar;
Judgment 3674
122nd Session, 2016
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The objection to receivability based on the contention that the complaint was filed late cannot be accepted, since OTIF has not produced any evidence that would enable the Tribunal to establish that the complainant received the notification of 16 July 2013 before the date specified by him [...].
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 3666
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to promote him in 2012.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The above considerations are enough to dismiss the complaint but, for the sake of clarity, the Tribunal finds it useful to add that the complainant’s claim that the Joint Committee for Disputes (JCD) was incorrect in stating that his performance appraisal report for 2011 could not justify his promotion, is unfounded. Article 45 of the Staff Regulations clearly provides that merit shall be of primary importance in considering eligibility for promotion, and it goes on to specify that the official’s appraisal reports shall be taken into consideration when considering comparative merit. However, the Tribunal notes that the complainant’s performance appraisal report for 2011 does not show that his merit would justify a promotion. Furthermore, the complainant’s criticism towards his 2011 appraisal report cannot be taken into consideration as he did not impugn the appraisal report in accordance with the relevant rules and within the applicable time limits. Therefore the complainant’s 2011 appraisal report is immune from challenge.
Keywords:
decision; performance report; time bar;
Judgment 3651
122nd Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment upon the expiry of his probationary period.
Considerations 5 and 6
Extract:
In Judgment 3311, considerations 5 and 6, the Tribunal reiterated that the time limits for internal appeal procedures serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way and the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time. The Tribunal relevantly rationalized this approach in the following terms: time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary, otherwise the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions potentially adversely affecting the staff of international organisations would be put at risk. Flexibility about time limits should not intrude into the Tribunal’s decision-making even if it might be thought to be equitable or fair in a particular case to allow some flexibility. To do otherwise would “impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations” (see Judgment 2722, consideration 3). However, there are some exceptions to this general approach, which have been expressed in the Tribunal’s case law.
Additionally, however, Manual paragraph 331.3.31 provides that the Appeals Committee may consider an appeal that has been filed out of time to be receivable if it finds that the failure to abide by the time-limit was for a reason that was outside of the complainant’s control and the length of the delay in filing was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The complainant only states that his appeal was hampered because upon being separated from service, the FAO discontinued his email account and that this action delayed his preparation of the appeal. It is however noted that the FAO re-activated the complainant’s account a week later for thirty days. As the Appeals Committee found, this circumstance did not justify the late filing of the complainant’s appeal some two and a half months after his account was restored. Accordingly, the complaint is irreceivable, under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, as the complainant has not exhausted the internal means of appeal and has failed to submit his appeal to the Director-General within the prescribed time limit required by Staff Rule 303.1.311. The complaint will therefore be dismissed in its entirety.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2722, 3311
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
