Time bar (117,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Time bar
Total judgments found: 235
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
Judgment 5154
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint must be filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned. The Tribunal has no competence to extend the deadline set forth by the Statute (see, for example, Judgments 4741, consideration 12, 3973, consideration 3 and 3559, consideration 3). […] Accordingly, the complainant’s claim for compensation for the alleged failure to reassign him is irreceivable. However, the complainant may refer to the rotation history as part of the chronology leading to the present case concerning the reclassification of his post (see, for example, Judgments 4100, consideration 3, 3380, consideration 8, and 1982, consideration 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1982, 3380, 3559, 3973, 4100, 4741
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 5105
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension from duty pending investigation into alleged misconduct in connection with outside activities, and his subsequent discharge for misconduct in connection with the publication of a defamatory blog.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal holds that any arguments and claims by the complainant concerning the 28 April 2021 decision to close his harassment complaint are irreceivable as time-barred. The 28 April 2021 decision was final and challengeable before the Tribunal within ninety calendar days, consistent with Articles 12.2. and 12.3. of the Staff Regulations and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute. Additionally, the 28 April 2021 decision expressly informed the complainant of the available judicial remedy and its associated time limit. The complainant failed to challenge this decision before the Tribunal within the prescribed deadline.
Keywords:
failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies not exhausted; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 5032
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de limiter dans le temps le remboursement de sommes déduites du montant des allocations familiales versées par l’Organisation au titre de sommes perçues d’un régime de protection sociale national.
Considerations 10 and 15
Extract:
[L]e fait qu’un requérant n’ait découvert l’illégalité dont il entend se prévaloir qu’après l’expiration du délai de recours n’est pas, en lui-même, de nature à permettre de considérer sa requête comme recevable […]. En outre, la réponse à une demande de clarification d’une décision ne saurait déclencher un nouveau délai de recours pour contester la décision initiale, car reconnaître un tel principe rendrait caduc l’objectif pour lequel un tel délai a été instauré […] . Tel est également le cas dans l’hypothèse d’une réponse à une demande de réexamen formulée après qu’une décision définitive a été prise […].
[…] Il s’ensuit que la requête est irrecevable en ce qu’elle est dirigée contre celle-ci pour non respect de l’exigence d’épuisement des voies de recours interne posée par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal. En effet, il résulte de la jurisprudence du Tribunal que, pour qu’une requête soit recevable au regard de cette disposition, le requérant doit non seulement avoir usé des voies de recours interne, mais doit en outre l’avoir fait en respectant les conditions et délais prescrits par les textes applicables au sein de l’organisation concernée […].
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new fact; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 5014
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her request to be reassigned to a different team, and consequently to a different reporting line, as well as her request for a new assessment of her position.
Consideration 5
Extract:
According to Article 3 (“Receivability”), Annex X (“Grievance and Dispute Resolution”) to the Employee Handbook of the defendant organisation, the complainant was required to lodge a request for resolution by no later than 90 days “after the employee was notified of the decision giving rise to the Request for Resolution” or “after the employee became aware of the action or omission of the Global Fund management giving rise to the Request for Resolution”.
The complainant’s job description was reviewed by an external service provider and her position title was renamed in October 2016. The complainant alleges that she was not provided with information about the review nor with her new job’s description. However, it appears from the facts that the complainant’s acknowledgment of raising issues concerning her job […] demonstrate her awareness of the relevant details as early as 2017. Consequently, her claims on these matters are time-barred.
Keywords:
time bar;
Judgment 5013
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to terminate his employment contract while he was on certified sick leave and its failure to grant in a timely manner his requests to be placed on Continuous Disability Benefits.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disability benefit; internal remedies not exhausted; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]t is firmly established in its case law that strict adherence to time limits is essential to have finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions (see, for example, Judgment 4103, consideration 1). As aptly noted by the Tribunal in Judgment 4184, consideration 4, “the time limits for internal appeal procedures [...] 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”. Pursuant to this consistent requirement of strict adherence to time limits, where a complainant does not comply with prescribed time limits for lodging a request for review, a grievance and/or an appeal, the complaint will be irreceivable for failure to exhaust all internal means of redress in accordance with Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute (see, for example, Judgments 4426, consideration 9, 4374, consideration 8, and 4221, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4103, 4184, 4221, 4374, 4426
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4973
139th Session, 2025
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the step assigned to him at the time of his recruitment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; grade; step; terms of appointment; time bar;
Judgment 4966
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision, taken without an investigation, to dismiss her complaint of harassment against Ms J.E.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
[I]t is patently the case that the harassment complaint filed on 11 September 2018 […] was also filed well beyond the 90 days in which the grievance should have been filed (as provided by Staff Rule 11.4.1) and was filed out of time. As the complainant failed to prove that she has followed the procedure laid down in Staff Rule 11.4.1 and Office Instruction 47/2016 and in particular that she has observed the time limit set by the procedure, the Director General correctly decided that her harassment complaint was time-barred. Accordingly, her complaint filed before the Tribunal should be dismissed as unfounded.
Keywords:
harassment; time bar; time limit;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; time bar;
Judgment 4965
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision, taken without an investigation, to dismiss her complaint of harassment against Mr S.
Considerations 3-6
Extract:
In a letter dated 12 October 2020 by which the complaint was filed, the complainant’s lawyer admits that the final decision on which the complaint is based, was received by him on or about 8 July 2020 and also admits, correctly, that the due date for filing a complaint with the Tribunal was 6 October 2020. He requested that the “tardy filing” be accepted by the Tribunal for reasons which he gave centrally concerning the health of his daughter who had, about this time, contracted the COVID-19 virus. […] [T]he Tribunal does not have a discretionary power to extend time under Article VII and, accordingly, whether the reasons given were compelling or not, is irrelevant. […] [T]he Tribunal generally has no power to waive non-compliance with Article VII or to extend time so as to alter its effect (see, for example, Judgment 59, consideration 3). Plainly enough, the source of the Tribunal’s powers and jurisdiction (and its limits) is the Statute. A necessary implication of Article VII, paragraph 2, is that those powers, and specifically the powers deriving from the competence of the Tribunal created by Article II, cannot be called in aid to alter the effect of Article VII, paragraph 2. By operation of Article VII, paragraph 2, the complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 59
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat statute; ratione temporis; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4955
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject, on grounds of irreceivability, his compensation claims for what he considers to be a service-incurred illness.
Consideration 5
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgments 4830, consideration 6, 4742, consideration 9, and 4655, consideration 15, in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of such decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their setting aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4655, 4742, 4830
Keywords:
compensation; failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4940
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; promise; time bar;
Judgment 4939
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; promise; time bar;
Judgment 4938
139th Session, 2025
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and alleges breach of a promise of employment made to him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; promise; time bar;
Judgment 4899
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests modifications made to the healthcare insurance contribution.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; general decision; time bar;
Judgment 4896
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2018.
Considerations 3 and 5
Extract:
According to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”.
The Tribunal has consistently held that the period of time set forth by the Statute begins to run on the day following the date of notification of the impugned decision, but where the ninetieth day falls on a public holiday, the period is extended until the next business day (see, for example, Judgments 3801, consideration 3, 3708, consideration 3, 3630, consideration 3, or 2250, consideration 8).
[...]
The period provided for in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute begins to run, as already stated, on the day following the date of notification of the impugned decision, meaning that its point of commencement is taken as the beginning of that day. The first day to be counted is therefore the day immediately following the day of notification – namely, in the present case, 19 December 2019 – and not the day after that (see, in particular, Judgments 4441, considerations 1 and 3, 4272, considerations 2 and 4, 3973, considerations 2 and 4, 3801, considerations 2 and 4, 3708, considerations 2 and 4, or 3630, considerations 2 and 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2250, 3630, 3630, 3708, 3708, 3801, 3801, 3973, 4272, 4441
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Consideration 6
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 (see, for example, Judgments 4374, consideration 7, 4160, consideration 9, 3828, consideration 7, 3406, consideration 12, or3002, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3002, 3406, 3828, 4160, 4374
Keywords:
late appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4830
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied decision dismissing his request for his administrative situation to be regularised, the decision ordering his transfer, the decision to award him a special post allowance in that it excluded a certain period and the amount in question was insufficient, and the decision announcing his promotion in that it was not retroactive and did not place him on step 7 of grade G.4.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that, in his letter of 12 December 2018 addressed to the Secretary-General, the complainant based his claims on administrative decisions that he did not challenge within the period prescribed by [...] Staff Rule 11.1.2. It is clear from the evidence that the complainant did not submit a request for reconsideration in respect of his job description or his transfer when he was transferred on 1 January 2014 [...]. Neither did he submit a request for reconsideration in respect of the payslips which he subsequently received every month.
The Tribunal cannot accept the complainant’s argument that his request of 12 December 2018 was not time-barred because its purpose was to obtain compensation for the whole of the injury he allegedly suffered for the period from 1 January 2013 to 1 March 2020, and that actions of this type are not, as such, subject to any particular time limit.
The Tribunal considers this manner of presenting the case contrived, because, in a dispute involving a challenge to individual decisions, as here, compensation for injury arising from the alleged unlawfulness of such decisions could only be granted as a consequence of their setting aside, which presupposes by definition that they have been challenged within the applicable time limit. Endorsing the complainant’s argument would have the effect of authorising an organisation’s staff members in practice to evade the effects of the rules on time limits for filing appeals by allowing them to seek compensation at any time for the injury caused to them by an individual decision, even though they did not challenge that decision in time. Such a situation would scarcely be permissible having regard to the requirement of stability of legal relations which, as the Tribunal regularly points out in its case law, is the very justification for time bars (see, for example, Judgments 4742, consideration 9, and 4655, consideration 15).
It follows that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent that it concerns the implied decision dismissing his request of 12 December 2018 for his administrative situation to be regularised, because he failed to exhaust the internal means of redress as required by Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4655, 4742
Keywords:
compensation; failure to exhaust internal remedies; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; internal remedies not exhausted; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4821
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who in 2019 claimed an allowance which he could have claimed as early as 2001, challenges the Organisation’s decision to pay the allowance with effect from only five years prior to the date of his claim.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
allowance; complaint allowed; retroactivity; time bar;
Judgment 4759
137th Session, 2024
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; promise; time bar;
Judgment 4758
137th Session, 2024
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Secretary-General to end her employment and the breach of a promise of employment allegedly made to her.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; promise; time bar;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”.
The Tribunal notes that the impugned decision of 14 June 2021 rejected an internal complaint lodged by the complainant even though she had not been a member of the Organisation’s staff since 27 December 2020 and therefore no longer had access to the means of internal redress (see Judgment 4582, consideration 4). Given that the complaint against that decision was dated 15 June 2022, it was not filed with the Tribunal within the period prescribed therefor.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4582
Keywords:
late filing; time bar;
Judgment 4757
137th Session, 2024
Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his employment contract and the breach of a promise to employ him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”.
The Tribunal notes that the impugned decision of 28 June 2021 rejected an internal complaint lodged by the complainant even though he had not been a member of the Organisation’s staff since 31 December 2020 and therefore no longer had access to the means of internal redress (see Judgment 4582, consideration 4). Given that the complaint against that decision was dated 15 June 2022, it was not filed with the Tribunal within the period prescribed therefor.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4582
Keywords:
time bar;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late filing; promise; time bar;
Judgment 4746
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following a preliminary assessment and without conducting an investigation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; opening of an investigation; organisation's duties; parallel proceedings; time bar;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
