Facts
Bank X. SA dismissed its CEO [A.] with immediate effect on 22 August 1991, suspecting him of participating in a fraud. On 1 October 1991, [A.] filed a claim with the Labour Court to contest his dismissal and obtain damages. However, the Labour Court of Appeal declared itself incompetent on 27 September 2000. On 14 February 2001, [A.] filed a counterclaim with the Court of First Instance in the pending proceedings between him and the bank. However, this claim was declared inadmissible due to tardiness by the Court of First Instance on 27 September 2001, a decision confirmed on appeal on 14 June 2002. On 16 August 2002, [A.] then filed a new claim with the Court of First Instance, seeking to obtain the same amounts as those claimed in his previous counterclaim. The bank raised a plea of prescription.Considerations
The Federal Court upheld the bank's appeal and rejected all of A.'s substantive conclusions against it, considering that his claims were time-barred: - A.'s filing of the action with the Labour Court on 1 October 1991 did not interrupt the prescription, as that court had been found incompetent. - The…