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 1148
72nd Session, 1992
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
Having submitted a claim for the refund of the costs of an item, the complainant first received a statement from the Sickness Fund which alluded to "non-refundable items". Only later did a note indicate which items were being refused. Eurocontrol contends that the time limit ran from the date at which she got the original statement from the Fund, the later note having merely confirmed the earlier decision. "The argument fails. The cryptic allusion in the statement to 'non-refundable items' did not suffice to tell the complainant just what she was being refused. The 'act adversely affecting' her - to quote the Regulations - did not become specific until she got the [note] and so that is the date at which the time limit for her internal appeal began. [...] She acted in time."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; decision; health insurance; medical expenses; refund; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1115
71st Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the complaint was filed on the ninetieth day after the date of notification of the impugned decision, it is receivable in keeping with Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Rules of court and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1106
71st Session, 1991
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute a complaint will not be receivable unless filed within ninety days of the date of notification of the impugned decision, and Article 6(3) of the Rules of Court says that the 'date of despatch' of the complaint shall alone be taken into account." The complainant got notification of the impugned decision on 7 March 1990. Having waited until 6 June 1990 to post his complaint, he ran over the time limit by one day: the complaint is time-barred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Time limits are a matter of objective fact. "If that were not so - whatever considerations of equity there might be - there could be no certainty in legal relations between the parties, and such certainty is the whole point and purpose of the time bar. An exception might be allowed only if the organization had acted in bad faith and misled the official. But in this case the organization did not."
Keywords:
complaint; exception; good faith; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1091
70th Session, 1991
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's appeal against delays in the procedure to regrade his post was rejected by a decision of 10 October 1989. The decision was confirmed in a memorandum of 4 December 1989. The time limit for appeal to the Tribunal ran from 10 October. The complaint having been filed on 2 March 1990 it is time-barred.
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1082
70th Session, 1991
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 873 (in re Da) the CIPEC Staff Regulations do not provide for internal appeal. But that does not preclude the organisation's entertaining such an appeal ex gratia."The complainant addressed an appeal to the decision- making authority" before the expiry of ninety days from the date of the original decision and the Secretary-General's answer was to uphold that decision. So it is fair to take the ninety days as running from the date of confirmation and treat the complaint as filed in time."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 873
Keywords:
complaint; internal appeal; no provision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1052
69th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant got word of the decision not to renew his contract before receiving formal notification. "The only date that matters for the purpose of reckoning the time limit in [Article] VII(2) [of the Tribunal's Statute] is the date of formal notification of the final decision in writing."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; formal requirements; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1020
69th Session, 1990
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
After initially accepting the organization's offer of transfer made in connection with its headquarters move, the complainants changed their minds. Their appointments were then terminated. The organization calculated the period of notice as if they had turned the transfer offers down from the start. The complainants argue that the period of notice must run from the day they made their position known and that they are therefore entitled to compensation. The Tribunal holds that such an interpretation runs counter to the applicable provisions since the organization's intention was to treat all staff members who refused the offer of transfer in the same way, whatever the date of their refusal.
Keywords:
compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; notice; refusal; start of time limit; termination of employment; time limit; transfer; transfer of headquarters;
Judgment 1019
69th Session, 1990
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1020.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1020
Keywords:
compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; notice; refusal; start of time limit; termination of employment; time limit; transfer; transfer of headquarters;
Judgment 1010
68th Session, 1990
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant's internal appeal against termination after the extension of his probation is time-barred. He argues "that an unregistered letter from someone other than the Director-General cannot constitute proper notice of dismissal or of extension of probation. [The] plea fails [...]. Provided that the staff member is given official notice of a decision the time limit starts to run and there is no need for special procedural formalities. And the absence of the Director-General's signature can have no effect on the time limit for appeal even though it may in some circumstances warrant setting the decision aside."
Keywords:
consequence; decision; flaw; formal flaw; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 997
68th Session, 1990
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As the Tribunal held in Judgment 647, provided a communication takes the form of a decision, its lawfulness is immaterial for the purpose of lodging an appeal." In the circumstances of the case the complainant's internal appeal against a decision requiring him to take home leave before a specified date was time-barred. The complaint is irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 647
Keywords:
consequence; decision; flaw; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 977
66th Session, 1989
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Having made his 13.1 request for review on 7 October 1987, the complainant submitted a 'complaint' under 13.2 on 8 April 1988. The lodging of the 13.1 request and the substance of it show that the complainant had become aware of the 'treatment complained of' over six months before he lodged his 'complaint', and it was therefore out of time under 13.2."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 13.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS;
ARTICLE 13.2 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
date of notification; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 960
66th Session, 1989
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organisation argues that the complainant's internal appeal against the application of the amended scale of pensionable remuneration was time-barred. The plea fails. The Tribunal holds that "although [the complainant] must have known for over two years that amending the scale would have consequences when she left she could not know what the financial consequences would be."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; consequence; decision; internal appeal; pension; pensionable remuneration; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; retirement; scale; separation from service; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 955
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant's "argument that he was late in discovering that the decision had been unlawful is irrelevant: a time limit is a matter of objective fact and starts when the decision is notified. if that were not so - whatever considerations of equity there might be - there could be no certainty in legal relations between the parties, and such certainty is the whole point and purpose of time limits. An exception might be allowed only if the organisation had acted in bad faith and misled the official."
Keywords:
consequence; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 918
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Provided a communication takes the form of a decision, its lawfulness is immaterial to the reckoning of the time limit: to hold otherwise would impair the stability of the parties' position in law, which is the purpose of the time limit."
Keywords:
consequence; decision; flaw; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 882
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant maintains that the time-limit for lodging an internal appeal should run from the date on which he received the first pay-slip showing his new grading. To support that view he cites Judgment No. 753 of 12 June 1986. In the view of the Tribunal, the complainant "misreads Judgment 753: what the Tribunal held was that payment of salary might be treated as a challengeable decision only when there was no other."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 753
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; formal requirements; internal appeal; payslip; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 685
57th Session, 1985
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant objects to the detriment to himself and his family caused by his assignment to Nepal. So the decision he impugns is the one informing him of his transfer, of which he got notice in March 1981. Since he waited until March 1983 to put his case to the Appeal Board the complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
consequence; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; transfer;
Judgment 676
56th Session, 1985
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
A staff member may ask the administration for review of a decision either when some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken or where the staff member is relying on facts or evidence of which he was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken. If either condition is fulfilled the administration is under a duty to review, and the new decision will set a new time limit.
Keywords:
case reopened; complainant; condition; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 647
55th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Even if the letter [...] had been written without authority, the decision therein would not cease to exist on that account. [...] Provided a communication takes the form of a decision its lawfulness is immaterial to the reckoning of the time limit for lodging an appeal. To hold otherwise would impair the stability of the parties' position in law, which is the purpose and indeed the whole point of a time limit."
Keywords:
competence; consequence; decision; decision-maker; flaw; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 630
54th Session, 1984
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the unfair treatment lies in her being kept idle for so long. Accordingly the time limit for filing an appeal did not begin on the date on which her supervisor decided, while keeping her on her post, to give her no more work: the injury occurred only with the passage of time. Thus, although it was only after being kept idle for a considerable lapse of time that the complainant appealed to the Director-General, and then to the Tribunal, for compensation for the injury she alleged, her claims are not time-barred and her complaint is receivable."
Keywords:
compensation; complaint; date; executive head; iloat; injury; internal appeal; period; post; receivability of the complaint; refusal to assign work; request by a party; start of time limit; supervisor; time bar;
Judgment 612
53rd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's submission of an internal appeal was time-barred; for not having correctly followed the internal procedure, her complaint is irreceivable. The discovery of an allegedly unlawful decision does not affect the time limit for internal appeal. The only exception is where the organisation has misled the complainant in breach of good faith.
Keywords:
consequence; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
