These judgments concern time limits:
Case No. 16 of the Administrative Tribunal, 5 February 1996
(PDF, 110kb) - The applicant requested payment of the residence allowance and asked the Tribunal to make use of the provision allowing it, “in exceptional cases”, to declare admissible an application filed after expiry of the time limit.
No. 41: 15 October 1999
(PDF, 152kb) - The applicant challenged the Secretary-General’s decision to suppress her post and place her on special leave, and asked for compensation for material and moral prejudice caused by the errors committed by the Administration.
No. 54: 18 April 2002
(PDF, 186kb) - The applicant asked the Tribunal to rule that the theoretical duration of his notice period, following the suppression of his post, should be taken into account in calculating his paid leave and also for the amount of his leaving allowance and pension. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the various submissions.
No. 63: 24 February 2009
(PDF, 238kb) - The applicant asked for compensation for the prejudice she claimed to have suffered as a result of harassment and of decisions refusing her requests for promotion. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the application.
No. 67: 23 March 2010
(PDF, 212kb) - The applicant alleged that the decision not to renew her contract was tainted by discrimination based on the state of her health. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the application.
- No. 69: 24 March 2011 (PDF, 236kb) - Having unsuccessfully challenged the Secretary-General’s decision not to renew her consultancy appointment before French courts, the applicant asks the Tribunal to make use of Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure, allowing it, “in exceptional cases”, to declare admissible an application filed after expiry of the time limit. She also claims the payment of various sums to compensate her for the prejudice resulting from the end of her appointment.
- No. 75: 6 February 2014 (PDF, 193kb) - The Applicant alleged that the decision not to select him for the position of Senior Public Procurement Adviser was tainted by discrimination on the grounds of age. The Tribunal discussed the admissibility of the application.
Judgments by category