|
|
 |
|
|
Late appeal (695,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Late appeal
Total judgments found: 60
< previous | 1, 2, 3
Judgment 3837
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; non-renewal of contract; time limit;
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 3829
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period and the non-renewal of her contract.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not rule on the lawfulness of a decision which has become final, 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. In particular, the fact that a complainant may not have discovered the irregularity on which she or he purports to rely until after the expiry of the time limit is not in principle a reason to deem her or his complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgment 3663, under 7, and the case law cited therein).
It is true that the Tribunal’s case law, as set forth in Judgments 1466, 2722 and 3406 for example, allows exceptions to this rule where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time, or where the organisation, by deliberately misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from her or him, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising her or his right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 3406, 3663
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; time limit;
Judgment 3828
124th Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to convert her limited-term appointment into an appointment for an undetermined period, the reduction of the basis for calculating her contributions to the Eurocontrol Pension Scheme and the non-renewal of her contract.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not rule on the lawfulness of a decision which has become final, 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. In particular, the fact that a complainant may not have discovered the irregularity on which she or he purports to rely until after the expiry of the time limit is not in principle a reason to deem her or his complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgment 3663, under 7, and the case law cited therein).
It is true that the Tribunal’s case law, as set forth in Judgments 1466, 2722 and 3406 for example, allows exceptions to this rule where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time, or where the organisation, by deliberately misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from her or him, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising her or his right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 3406, 3663
Keywords:
internal appeal; late appeal; time limit;
Judgment 3784
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of his reckonable previous experience upon recruitment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The EPO raises receivability as a threshold issue. It asks the Tribunal to note that the version of Article 108 of the Service Regulations then in force required an internal appeal to be lodged within three months from the date on which an appellant became aware of the decision appealed against. The Tribunal has consistently stated that time limits which are provided for lodging internal appeals must be strictly adhered to because they serve the important purposes of ensuring that disputes are dealt with in a timely way so that the rights of parties are known to be settled at a particular point of time efficaciously. In addition, 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”. However, there are exceptions to this general approach. One is that if the question of receivability was not raised by the organisation in the internal appeal then it cannot be raised in the Tribunal. Another is if the defendant organisation has misled the complainant or concealed some paper from the complainant and thus deprived the complainant of the possibility of exercising her or his right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith (see, for example, Judgments 2722, consideration 3, and 3311, considerations 5 and 6).
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 108 of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2722, 3311
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal;
Judgment 3758
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for a post.
Consideration 19
Extract:
Although the motivation for doing so is unknown, the Tribunal finds that […] the Administration acted in bad faith by deliberately misleading the complainant to his detriment. It follows that an exception must be made to the strict adherence to the time limit for lodging the internal appeal against the selection decision for post […]. Accordingly, as the internal appeal to the RBA was receivable as was the appeal to the HBA, the complainant has exhausted the internal means of redress and the present complaint before the Tribunal is receivable.
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal;
Judgment 3755
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment owing to the abolition of his position.
Consideration 3
Extract:
An organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that a decision which is not challenged within the prescribed time limits is fully and legally effective when the applicable time limit for challenging that decision before the competent internal appeal bodies has passed (see Judgments 2933, under 8, and 3439, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2933, 3439
Keywords:
late appeal;
Judgment 3737
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he was subjected to harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; late appeal;
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;
Judgment 3614
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to allow her to benefit from the transitional measure accompanying the replacement of the former invalidity pension with an invalidity allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; en banc review; invalidity; late appeal; plenary judgment; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3368
118th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal considered that the complainant’s employment under short-term contracts was unlawful and that the Organisation failed to provide reasonable notice of non-renewal.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal [...] rejects the ILO’s contention that the complaint’s claim for the conversion of her short-term contract is receivable only to the extent that it relates to her last contract extension for the period from 1 January to 31 May 2010, but is otherwise time-barred. The ILO relies on Judgments 2708 and 2838 as authority for its submission that, in view of the six-month time limit for filing a grievance under Article 13.2 of the Staff Regulations, the grievance filed on 4 November 2010 is irreceivable as to extensions prior to that of 1 January to 31 May 2010. A similar argument was rejected by the Tribunal in Judgment 3110, under 5. It is sufficient to note that, as earlier indicated, at the material time the complainant was employed under a single contract which was extended several times, and neither the extension of 1 January 2010 nor the decision to apply Rule 3.5 to her gave rise to a new, separate contract. The objection therefore fails."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2708, 2838, 3110
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3347
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing her harassment complaint and challenges the lawfulness of the internal appeals and investigation procedures.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Contrary to the Organization’s assertion, the determination of the receivability of an internal appeal itself has no bearing on the receivability of a complaint filed with the Tribunal. The latter is governed by the Tribunal’s Statute. Indeed, a decision on receivability in an internal appeal is reviewable by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
late appeal; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3253
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns an unfavourable evaluation report. Her internal appeal having wrongly been rejected as irreceivable, the case is referred back to the internal appeal body.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is well settled that the burden of proof is on the sender to establish the date on which a communication was received. If that cannot be done (perhaps because the document was sent by a system of transmission that does not permit actual proof), the Tribunal will ordinarily accept what is said by the addressee about the date of receipt (see, generally, Judgments 447, consideration 2; 456, consideration 7; 723, consideration 4; 890, consideration 4; 930, consideration 8; 2473, consideration 4; and 2494, consideration 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 447, 456, 723, 890, 930, 2473, 2494
Keywords:
burden of proof; date of notification; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; late appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3140
113th Session, 2012
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is well established in the case law that a staff member concerned by an administrative decision which has become final may ask the Administration to review it where some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or where he or she is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he or she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken (see Judgments 676, under 1, 2203, under 7, and 2722, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 676, 2203, 2722
Keywords:
late appeal;
Judgment 3002
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13 to 15
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time [...]. In particular, the fact that a complainant may have discovered a new fact showing that the impugned decision is unlawful only after the expiry of the time limit for submitting an appeal is not in principle a reason to deem his or her complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgments 602, under 3, 1466, under 5 and 6, or 2821, under 8).
It is true that, notwithstanding these rules, the Tribunal's case law allows an employee concerned by an administrative decision which has become final to ask the Administration for review either when some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or else when the employee is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he/she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken (see Judgments 676, under 1, 2203, under 7, or 2722, under 4). However, the fact that, after the expiry of the time limit for appealing against a decision, the Tribunal has rendered a judgment on the lawfulness of a similar decision in another case, does not come within the scope of these exceptions.
In particular, in the instant case, the complainant's argument that the delivery of Judgment 2359 constitutes a new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance, within the meaning of the above-cited case law, is to no avail. In Judgment 676 the Tribunal did accept that the delivery of one of its judgments could be described in these terms and could therefore have the effect of reopening the time limit within which a complainant could lodge an appeal. But the circumstances of the case were very special in that the Tribunal, in previous judgments which it cited in that case, had formulated a rule which had greatly altered the position of certain staff members of an organisation and which, although already applied by the organisation, had until then not been published or communicated to the staff members concerned. No exceptional circumstances of this nature exist in the instant case [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 602, 676, 1466, 2203, 2359, 2722, 2821
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; judgment of the tribunal; late appeal; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; suspension of the execution of a judgment; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2951
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An appeal against a decision which has recurring effects cannot be time-barred: each month in which the complainant receives her payslip, in accordance with her step-in-grade assignment, must be considered a source of a new cause of action (see Judgment 978, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 978
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; continuing breach; internal appeal; late appeal; payslip; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2907
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law as established in Judgments 752, under 4, and 2821, under 9, for example, exceptions may be made to the applicable time limits when an 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."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 752, 2821
Keywords:
good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 2901
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal's case law [...] allow[s] a complaint against an implied rejection to be deemed receivable, notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit for filing a complaint, if a particular step taken by an organisation, such as sending a dilatory reply to the complainant, might give that person good reason to infer that his or her claim is still under consideration (see Judgment 941, under 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 941
Keywords:
absence of final decision; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; late appeal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
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 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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3
|
|
|
|
|
