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 2831
107th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The internal appeal, which the complainant lodged on 27 August 2007 against a decision dated 23 May 2007, was rejected on 18 October 2007 on the grounds that it was time barred. The complainant asks the Tribunal to set aside the decision of 18 October 2007.
"In reality the internal appeal was filed within the three-month period laid down by the Staff Regulations. The complainant received the decision of 23 May 2007 on 24 May 2007. The period for lodging an appeal began to run on the next day, i.e. 25 May 2007. It expired on 25 August 2007 which, being a Saturday, was not a working day at WIPO. The time limit for submitting an appeal was therefore extended until the next working day, in other words Monday, 27 August 2007, the date on which the internal appeal was filed.
It follows that the decision of 18 October 2007 that the internal appeal lodged by the complainant was irreceivable must be set aside.
Since the complainant succeeds, he shall be awarded 5,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the injury which he has suffered [...]."
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; saturday; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2821
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 to 10
Extract:
The complainant was employed by the ILO from 16 June 1995 until 30 April 2004 under two temporary contracts which were extended several times and did not provide for pension coverage. On 1 May 2004 he was granted a fixed-term contract and acquired the status of an official of the Organization. On 1 August 2006 he filed a grievance, requesting that the above-mentioned period be validated for the purposes of affiliation to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
"The complainant did not challenge the content of [his temporary] contracts within the six-month time limit laid down for this purpose in the contracts themselves. It follows that he was manifestly no longer in a position, by the date on which he filed his grievance with the Organization, i.e. more than two years after the end of the period covered by his last contract, to challenge the provisions thereof."
The Tribunal rejected the arguments on which the complainant relied to persuade it that this time limit was not applicable to him.
Keywords:
contract; date; extension of contract; fixed-term; internal appeal; official; participation; participation excluded; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; short-term; status of complainant; time bar; time limit; unjspf; validation of service;
Judgment 2818
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In Judgment 2011 the Tribunal stated the following: «A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits [...], nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken [...].»"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2011
Keywords:
decision; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2722
105th Session, 2008
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466 and 2463, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, because 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 a time bar. As recalled in Judgment 1466, the only exceptions to this rule that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time (see Judgment 21), or where the organisation by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see Judgment 752). It does not, however, appear from the evidence, nor is it even alleged that the complainants in this case found themselves in either of these situations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2463, 2722
Keywords:
breach; case law; complaint; equity; exception; force majeure; good faith; grounds; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2565
101st Session, 2006
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(c)
Extract:
"A claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought in reasonable time (see Judgment 53, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 53
Keywords:
reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; time bar;
Judgment 2494
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Eurocontrol contends that Mr R.'s complaint is time-barred because it was filed more than three months after the notification of the decision rejecting his internal complaint. However, the Agency has produced no evidence of the date on which that decision was effectively notified. Failing such evidence, which it is the Agency's responsibility to provide, that complaint must be regarded as having been filed in good time."
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint; date of notification; decision; disclosure of evidence; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; refusal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2345
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1(c)
Extract:
"[A]n organisation, as part of its duty of care for its staff, is expected to help any staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right, if such help will enable the staff member to take useful action. If it is not too late, the organisation should also provide the staff member with procedural guidance.
In this case, [...] the Organization should have realised that the complainant was mistaken and that he did not need to wait for an authorisation before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It had enough time to point out to him that his complaint against the Director-General's decision [...] should be filed directly with the Tribunal within ninety days after the notification of the decision.
As the complainant was not given that guidance, he failed to act in time and the complaint should be declared irreceivable. Such a ruling would not, however, be compatible with the requirements of good faith which the parties and the Tribunal must observe."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; direct appeal to tribunal; duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2297
96th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[I]f an internal appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal would not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation by that body (see Judgment 775, under 1)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 775
Keywords:
advisory opinion; complaint; decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; mistaken hearing of merits; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2290
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Organisation contends that the internal appeal against a decision not to refund medical costs was not lodged in time. In doing so, it takes as the starting point of the time-limit the insurance representative's statement of account rejecting the request for refund. This "plea [...] is unfounded [...] This is because the insurance representative is not an organ of the Organisation, able to take decisions in the meaning of the Office's Service Regulations for Permanent Employees. Decisions concerning insurance benefits are taken by the Office, and more specifically by its President, in accordance with Article 83 of those Regulations."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 83 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
Keywords:
complaint; decision; executive head; health insurance; illness; insurance; internal appeal; medical expenses; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2282
96th Session, 2004
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[W]hat is at issue here is a plea of prescription on the part of the [organization], which seeks to take the benefit of the two-year limitation period in [a] staff rule. But prescription cannot be invoked by a party which has by its own actions prevented the timely exercise of the creditor's recourses. That is what the pleadings reveal to be the case here."
Keywords:
internal appeal; organisation's duties; refund; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2250
95th Session, 2003
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
When "the last day of the statutory ninety-day period [is] a holiday, the deadline is extended to the next business day, in line with the Tribunal's ruling in Judgments 306 and 517".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 306, 517
Keywords:
complaint; new time limit; public holiday; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2244
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Although "the complainants learnt from [a communiqué], addressed to all staff [...], that their appeal had been rejected [...] they were officially notified of the dismissal of their appeals only in [subsequent] letters [...], receipt of which they were asked to acknowledge. Contrary to the argument of the defendant, that was not a confirmation, but the first official notification of the decision to reject the internal appeals they had filed."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; information note; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 2181
94th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant seeks the validation of her service, for pension purposes, of the period between 13 September 1978 and 14 November 1979. What emerges from Article 23 of the UNJSPF Regulations is that "staff members whose terms of appointment expressly excluded participation in the UNJSPF during the period of service preceding their participation cannot subsequently request the validation of that period of service. that was the case with the complainant [...] she could [...] have made use, at the time [...] of the appeal mechanisms established by the [organisation], to obtain a modification of the terms of her contracts, or to challenge the legality of [the] rule [which provided that staff members engaged under short-term contracts could not participate in the unjspf]. However, since she failed to do so in due time, she is hardly in a position to seek the annulment of her appointments of 1978 and 1979 more than 20 years later. Besides, the nature of those appointments can no longer be challenged. The argument that the complainant did not use the available means of appeal for fear of harming her career cannot be accepted. Moreover, her request for validation of service, which was submitted on 22 December 1999, must be considered to be time-barred."
Keywords:
contract; contributory service; fund membership; internal appeal; late appeal; participation excluded; receivability of the complaint; short-term; terms of appointment; time bar; time limit; unjspf; validation of service;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
"A steady line of precedent, such as that cited in Judgment 1786, under 5, confirms that when impugning an individual decision that concerns the staff member directly, the latter may challenge the lawfulness of any general measure [...] In this case, the complainants could have challenged the individual application of [the] Information Circular [fixing the rate of their travel per diem] to each of them as long as that circular remained in force. [And as they] did not expressly challenge the individual application of that circular to them in due time, [they] can no longer impugn it. The fact that [they] thought that they might succeed in negotiating an amicable solution and for that reason chose not to appeal does not justify lifting the time bar that applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1786
Keywords:
administrative instruction; allowance; case law; cause of action; complaint; enforcement; general decision; grounds; individual decision; internal appeal; official; rate; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; settlement out of court; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2081
92nd Session, 2002
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The issue to be resolved [...] is whether the complainants are barred from objecting to the [organisation]'s failure to take into account the corrected level of salaries for 1995 in determining the salaries for 1996 and 1997, because they did not first challenge their salaries for 1996 and 1997 [... ] when they were originally fixed. But in view of the circumstances, to make such a demand on them would be pedantic and wanting in good faith. As the parties were aware at the time, the salary levels for 1995 were under challenge [...] Moreover, any change in salary levels will ordinarily affect pay in subsequent years. The staff therefore had good reason to believe that a change in pay for 1995 would have a "knock on" effect on the level of salaries used as a basis for calculating pay in the future. Moreover, the [organisation] could be in no doubt that this was what staff would expect. In these circumstances, and having given them no indication to the contrary, the [organisation] could not require staff to challenge each new determination of their salaries on the conditional and hypothetical basis that any successful challenge to the remuneration for a previous year (in this case 1995) should automatically be carried through to the salary levels taken into account in subsequent years."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; consequence; formal requirements; general principle; good faith; legitimate expectation; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; time bar;
Judgment 2067
91st Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
To prove he is the victim of harassment, the complainant relies on facts dating back several years. "Contrary to the [organization's] assertion, the complaint is receivable, there being nothing to prevent the complainant from citing an accumulation of events over time to support an allegation of harassment".
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; complaint; evidence; exception; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 2066
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"When an organisation hints that it will reconsider a decision affecting a staff member, it cannot reasonably expect the latter to challenge that decision. Nor may the staff member lodge an appeal against it unless the administration expressly states that the appeal procedure will take its course despite attempts to settle the case. In such instances, the rule that confirmation of an earlier decision sets off no new time limit for appeal does not apply."
Keywords:
case law; confirmatory decision; decision; enforcement; exception; express decision; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2037
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainants challenge the appointment of another staff member. The Appeals Committee considered that the appeals had not been filed in time. But the complainants argue that the challenged appointment was not definitive until the offer had been signed and the conditions for appointment satisfied. "When what is challenged is a contract between an organisation and a future employee, the act which may be impugned is the contract as communicated by the organisation, irrespective of the possibilities open to the contracting parties to appeal internally such as a medical examination still to be undergone [...] legal certainty requires communications from an organisation to be reliable so that all concerned know when the time limit for an appeal starts to run. this is all the more important when the organisation is not bound to reveal the exact content of the contract. In this instance, [...] since the organisation had already notified its decision and its agreement with the future [staff member] on his terms of appointment, the signing of the contract and the prior medical examination appeared to be mere formalities. It would have been sheer pedantry to insist that they be completed and the staff so informed before the appointment of the [staff member] was announced." The time limit for an appeal had therefore started to run as soon as the personnel had been informed of the contested appointment.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2011
90th Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"According to the case law of the Tribunal, for a decision, taken after an initial decision has been made, to be considered as a new decision (setting off new time limits for the submission of an internal appeal) the following conditions are to be met. The new decision must alter the previous decision and not be identical in substance, or at least must provide further justification, and must relate to different issues from the previous one or be based on new grounds (see Judgments 660 [...] and 759 [...]). It must not be a mere confirmation of the original decision (see Judgment 1304 [...]). The fact that discussions take place after a final decision is reached does not mean that the organization has taken a new and final decision. A decision made in different terms, but with the same meaning and purport as a previous one, does not constitute a new decision giving rise to new time limits (see Judgment 586 [...]), nor does a reply to requests for reconsideration made after a final decision has been taken (see Judgment 1528 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 586, 660, 759, 1304, 1528
Keywords:
case law; condition; confirmatory decision; cumulative decisions; decision; definition; formal requirements; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; same purpose; start of time limit; time bar; 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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
