Keywords
Summary

Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Prior administrative complaint ° Time-limits ° Matter of public policy

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials ° Actions ° Prior administrative complaint ° Implied decision rejecting a request not challenged within the time-limit ° Subsequent express decision ° Confirmatory measure ° Time- barred

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(1) and 91)

Summary

1. The time-limits under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for bringing complaints and appeals, laid down with a view to ensuring clarity and legal certainty, are a matter of public policy and are not a plea to be raised at the discretion of the parties or the Court.

The fact that an institution has not pleaded that a complaint is out of time cannot relieve the Court of its obligation to check whether the time-limits laid down in the Staff Regulations have been complied with.

2. Since the express rejection of a request after an implied decision rejecting that request is merely a confirmatory measure, it cannot, in the absence of any provision in the Staff Regulations to that effect, enable an official who has not challenged the implied decision rejecting his request within the time-limits to pursue the pre-litigation procedure by giving him a fresh period for lodging a complaint, without endangering legal certainty, which requires that the means of redress of officials and other servants should be governed by precise rules strictly interpreted.