ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Email (731,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Email
Total judgments found: 4

  • Judgment 4161


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a settlement agreement.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Contrary to the complainantís arguments, the Tribunalís case law in principle accepts notification by email (see Judgment 2966, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). There is no reason to distinguish between emails sent to the staff memberís work address when he is employed and those sent to his private address once he has left the organisation. The Tribunal further considers that since the complainant had chosen his counselís office as his address for notification purposes, which the parties do not dispute, any notification made to that address is valid.
    The decisionís notification to both the complainant and his counsel by both email and registered letter, and also the wording of the email, confused the complainant and led to an exchange of emails with the Deputy Director General concerning the start of the time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It is true that the Deputy Director General alerted the complainant to the terms of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal and advised him to consult his counsel about how to calculate the time limit. However, he did not inform him clearly of the date to take into account. The fact that the email stated that it contained only an advance copy of the decision and that the paper copy would be sent by registered post, and the failure of the email to indicate that the time limit would start to run on the date on which the email was received, could have misled the complainant and caused him to believe that the time limit only started to run on the date when the paper copy of the decision was received (for a similar case, see Judgment 3704, considerations 7 and 8). In this case, it is hence the later date that must be considered as the date on which the time limit for filing a complaint to the Tribunal started to run.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2966, 3704

    Keywords:

    email; late filing; notification; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3869


    124th Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, challenges the decision to abolish his post.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Whatever may have been the state of the Tribunalís case law in 1983, it is now settled that a decision may validly be notified by email and the time runs from the date on which the complainant learns of the decision (see, for example, Judgment 2966, consideration 8). It is true that circumstances can arise where the email communication together with a scanned copy of a hardcopy document accompanying the email misleads a complainant about when a time limit has commenced to run. An example of this is found in a recent judgment: Judgment 3704, consideration 8.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2966, 3704

    Keywords:

    email; notification;



  • Judgment 3849


    124th Session, 2017
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    There is no substance in the complainantís argument that the e-mail [...] could not have been notification because it took the form of an e-mail. No particular formality is required and notification by e-mail can constitute effective notification (see, for example, Judgment 2966, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2966

    Keywords:

    email; notification;



  • Judgment 3138


    113th Session, 2012
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    It is certainly regrettable that the complainantís professional mailbox was consulted in her absence. However, the evidence in the file shows that she was informed that such a technical check was imminent and Ė naturally Ė it had to be carried out urgently.

    Keywords:

    due process; email; evidence;


 
Last updated: 12.08.2019 ^ top