Late filing (748,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Late filing
Total judgments found: 24

< previous | 1, 2

• Judgment 3132

  
  113th Session, 2012
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  As the Tribunal held in Judgment 456, under 2, the purpose of Article VII, paragraph 3, of its Statute is twofold. Firstly, it enables an official to defend his or her interests by going to the Tribunal when the Administrative has failed to take a decision. Secondly, it prevents a dispute from dragging on indefinitely and from coming before the Tribunal at a time when the material have altered or can no longer be determined with certainty. This would undermine the necessary stability of the parties' legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. As pointed out in Judgment 2901, under 8, it follows from the twin purposes that, if the Administrative fails to take a decision on a claim within sixty days, the person submitting it not only can, but must refer the matter to the Tribunal within the following ninety days, i.e. within 150 days of his or her claim being received by the organisation, otherwise his or her complaint will be irreceivable. In the present case, the 150 days mentionned above expired at the latest in mid to late June 2008. The complainant did not receive any response to her claim within sixty days of her sending the letter of 12 January 2008; this is not in dispute. Therefore, she had a further ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal on the basis of an implied decision rejecting her grievances. In some cases, even a response received subsequently can be considered as nullifying and replacing the implied decision. However, neither letters from the Agency responding to the complainant can be considered as an administrative decision which would nullify and replace the implied decision rejecting her grievances outlined in her letter of 12 January 2008. It is clear that they did not contain any expression of will on the part of the Agency to allow the complainant to use the internal mechanisms she chose not to use at the time she left the service of the Agency. Instead, the first letter limited itself to informing her that she had far exceeded the time limit for bringing formal grievances against the Agency and the second letter merely stated that the information contained in the first letter was still valid. That being so, the 150-day time limit mentionned above has expired and the complaint must be considered irreceivable and therefore be dismissed.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 456, 2901
  

  Keywords:

  direct appeal to tribunal; late filing; time bar;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; late filing; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3116

  
  113th Session, 2012
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; late filing;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant submitted his complaint by sending a scanned complaint form to the Tribunal via an e-mail of 11 May 2010, with only sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 filled in. One of the essential sections, section 4, had been left blank. He submitted a completed version of the form on 18 May 2010.
  "It should be recalled that Article 6(1)(a) of the Rules of the Tribunal sets out the requirements of form for filing a complaint: the complainant should fill in and sign the complaint form prescribed in the Schedule of those Rules. The complainant’s requests to the Tribunal that he be allowed to correct retroactively the incomplete initial complaint form, sent on 11 May 2010, and consequently that the completed revision of it, sent on 18 May, be accepted as having been filed on 11 May, are denied. Indeed, the entries in the initial complaint form did not suffice to identify the relief the complainant was claiming. Therefore, one of the essential requirements of form set out in Article 6(1) was not met and the complaint could not be registered as filed on 11 May 2010. Moreover, this case does not fall within the purview of the thirty-day time limit prescribed by Article 6(2) of the Rules for correction of complaints. [...] Consequently, the document filed on [11 May 2010] cannot be considered a complaint, as it did not contain the claims which are essential elements of a complaint. The complaint form, properly filled in, was filed on 18 May 2010, i.e. six days after the expiration of the ninety-day time limit. Therefore, the complaint must be considered irreceivable."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Rules
  
  

  Keywords:

  complaint form; correction of complaint; formal requirements; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3034

  
  111th Session, 2011
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  It must be emphasised in this respect that [...] the conditions governing the receivability of complaints before the Tribunal are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. As was recently recalled in Judgment 2863, which was delivered in a case also concerning Eurocontrol, an rganisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal states that, “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must […] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published”. It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 of the Staff Regulations to set a different time limit for filing a complaint by specifying that that limit is three months instead of ninety days. Moreover the Tribunal’s case law indicates that the time limit laid down in the above-mentioned Article VII, paragraph 2, starts to run on the day after, and not on the day on which, the impugned decision is taken (see, for example, Judgment 2244, under 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2244
  

  Keywords:

  iloat statute; late filing; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  [The] period for filing a complaint expired on 28 December 2008. However, as that was a Sunday, the complaints of the persons concerned could still be filed on the following day (see Judgments 306, 517 and 2250, under 8).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 306, 517, 2250
  

  Keywords:

  late filing; sunday; time limit;
  

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [I]n accordance with the principles governing the burden of proof when determining the receivability of complaints, it is up to the organisation which intends to rely on late submission to establish the date on which the impugned decisions were notified (see Judgments 723, under 4, or 2494, under 4). Since the Agency has failed to produce any acknowledgement of receipt or other document attesting to the date on which the decisions in question were notified, it has not furnished proof of the alleged late submission.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 723, 2494
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; final decision; late filing; notification; time bar;
  

  
  
  

• 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;
  

< previous | 1, 2