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

Date of notification (110,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Date of notification
Total judgments found: 65

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

  • Judgment 3351


    118th Session, 2014
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the internal appeal was time-barred, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint seeking the payment of an allowance.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "Since the complainant had entrusted responsibility for checking her e-mails to a third party, she ought to have taken the necessary steps to be informed in a timely manner of important incoming messages addressed to her."

    Keywords:

    date of notification;



  • Judgment 3344


    118th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaints filed by the complainants acting as elected staff representatives and as staff members and challenging the lawfulness of an investigation procedure manual are dismissed as filed out-of-time.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; date of notification;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "A staff association ordinarily has no separate legal identity. Nonetheless, it cannot be assumed that it is necessary to notify all members of the executive in order to notify the executive of an association of a decision nor can it be assumed that the time of notification is the time at which the last of the members of the executive is, in fact, notified."

    Keywords:

    date of notification; staff representative;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal’s jurisprudence is that the burden of proof is on the sender to establish the date on which communication was received. If that cannot be done (perhaps because the document was sent by a system of transmission that does not permit actual proof), the Tribunal will ordinarily accept what is said by the addressee about the date of receipt (see Judgment 3253, consideration 7). However these principles do not absolve the Tribunal from evaluating the evidence provided by the parties if there is an issue about date of receipt in the context of an argument about time limits. Examples of the Tribunal doing this can be found in Judgments 3253, considerations 8 to 11, and 2678, considerations 3 to 5."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2678, 3253

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; date of notification;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "While the sender bears the burden of proof, [...] this does not absolve the recipient of a document from adducing evidence contradicting or challenging persuasive evidence from the sender about the likely date of receipt. That is particularly so where the facts which would justify a conclusion other than the conclusion suggested by the persuasive evidence provided by the sender, are peculiarly within the knowledge of the recipient."

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; date of notification;



  • Judgment 3304


    116th Session, 2014
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaints are time-barred and, consequently, clearly irreicevable.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complaint dismissed; date of notification; time bar;



  • Judgment 3253


    116th Session, 2014
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns an unfavourable evaluation report. Her internal appeal having wrongly been rejected as irreceivable, the case is referred back to the internal appeal body.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "It is well settled that the burden of proof is on the sender to establish the date on which a communication was received. If that cannot be done (perhaps because the document was sent by a system of transmission that does not permit actual proof), the Tribunal will ordinarily accept what is said by the addressee about the date of receipt (see, generally, Judgments 447, consideration 2; 456, consideration 7; 723, consideration 4; 890, consideration 4; 930, consideration 8; 2473, consideration 4; and 2494, consideration 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 447, 456, 723, 890, 930, 2473, 2494

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; date of notification; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; late appeal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 3033


    111th Session, 2011
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "[A]ny decision to terminate an employee's contract must be clear and precise and must comply with the applicable formal requirements. Moreover, like any decision unfavourable to an official, it cannot take effect before the date on which he or she is notified of it (see Judgment 1531, under 8)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1531

    Keywords:

    cause of action; date of notification; decision; effect; formal requirements; organisation's duties; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 2978


    110th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, when the result of a competition is announced and, more broadly when [...] the Administration chooses between candidates, the duty to state the reasons for the choice does not mean that they must be notified at the same time as the decision (see Judgments 1787, under 5, and 2035, under 4). These reasons may be disclosed at a later date, for example in the context of appeal proceedings (see Judgments 1590, under 7, and 2194, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1787, 2035, 2194

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; date of notification; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; formal requirements; grounds;



  • Judgment 2948


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "While Article VII, paragraph 3, of the [Tribunal's] Statute permits a complainant to have recourse to the Tribunal '[w]here the Administration fails to take a decision upon any claim of an official within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it', the Tribunal has consistently held that the forwarding of the claim to the advisory appeal body constitutes a 'decision upon [the] claim' within the meaning of these provisions, which is sufficient to forestall an implied rejection (see, for example, Judgments 532, 762, 786 or 2681)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 532, 762, 786, 2681

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; case law; date of notification; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; time limit;



  • Judgment 2863


    108th Session, 2010
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant was notified of the decision he impugns before the Tribunal on 11 March 2008 and filed his complaint against the Eurocontrol Agency on 11 June 2008. The Agency contends that the complainant had three months as from 11 March 2008 to submit a complaint to the Tribunal in accordance with Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency.
    "The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the conditions for the receivability of complaints submitted to it are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. An organisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal stipulates that '[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published'.
    It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 to set a different time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal by specifying that this must be done within three months rather than within ninety days. In the instant case the complainant, who was notified of the impugned decision on 11 March 2008, had ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal. While he is quite right in arguing that this period of time began on the day after that on which he had received notification and not on the date of notification itself, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law, his complaint is nonetheless time-barred, since this ninety-day period expired on 10 June. His complaint filed on 11 June 2008 was lodged on the ninety-first day after the day following that on which he was notified of the decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
    Organization rules reference: Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency

    Keywords:

    complaint; condition; date; date of notification; difference; flaw; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; organisation's duties; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; written rule;



  • Judgment 2708


    104th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    "The Organization [...] submits that the complaint is irreceivable. It asserts that the complainant's representative was notified of the impugned decision of 15 August 2006 that same day, and that the complaint filed with the Registry of the Tribunal on 15 November 2006 was therefore lodged outside the ninety-day period laid down in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, which in its opinion expired on 13 November 2006.
    The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that under Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, to be receivable, a complaint 'must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned'.
    The complainant states that the Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee posted the decision of 15 August 2006 to him, together with a covering letter dated 17 August 2006 informing him that he had ninety days as from notification of the decision to file a complaint with the Tribunal, if he so wished.
    The forwarding of the decision to the complainant's representative could not be deemed notification within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal. For this reason the Organization's objection to receivability is unfounded."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    complaint; condition; date; date of notification; delay; iloat statute; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union; time limit;



  • Judgment 2677


    104th Session, 2008
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The first issues in this case relate to when the ICC's administrative decision was communicated to the complainant [...]. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the decision was officially communicated to the complainant in the e-mail of 4 May 2006 from the Chief of Human Resources. [...] The preceding oral and written communications from various ICC staff members were simply courtesy replies to the questions the complainant posed [...]. [T]here was no communication of a decision until the complainant requested [...] an official letter from the ICC. Only in the ICC's reply [...] did a decision come to light."

    Keywords:

    date of notification; decision;



  • Judgment 2496


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "A decision as serious as one imposing a disciplinary measure will be lawful only provided that the rights of the staff members concerned to a fully adversarial procedure have been scrupulously respected. Charges must be precisely worded and notified sufficiently early to enable the staff member concerned to defend his case, particularly by establishing evidence and gathering testimonies which he believes are likely to refute the charges in the eyes of the disciplinary body and of the deciding authority, according to the nature of the charges against him."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; advisory body; condition; date of notification; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; executive head; official; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; testimony; time limit;



  • Judgment 2494


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Eurocontrol contends that Mr R.'s complaint is time-barred because it was filed more than three months after the notification of the decision rejecting his internal complaint. However, the Agency has produced no evidence of the date on which that decision was effectively notified. Failing such evidence, which it is the Agency's responsibility to provide, that complaint must be regarded as having been filed in good time."

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complaint; date of notification; decision; disclosure of evidence; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; refusal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2473


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Organization contends that since the impugned decision was notified to the complainant on 21 November 2003, he should have filed his complaint with the Tribunal, according to Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, within ninety days after the date of notification, that is to say by 19 February 2004 at the latest and not in July 2004 as was the case.
    Contrary to the defendant's allegation, the complainant asserts that he received the decision dated 21 November 2003 only on 28 April 2004 following a request he made to the Director-General on 15 April 2004. Since the defendant, which bears the burden of proof in this respect, has not proved that the notification actually occurred on 21 November 2003, the Tribunal must accept the date of 28 April 2004 indicated on the note transmitting a copy of the impugned decision to the complainant, and it will therefore consider that the complaint he filed on 26 July 2004 fell within the required time limit."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complainant; complaint; date; date of notification; decision; executive head; iloat; iloat statute; information note; lack of evidence; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2410


    98th Session, 2005
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[M]onthly pension payments are not notified individually except when pensioners are informed of decisions concerning the rate of adjustment decided by CERN's competent bodies. In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that, while the bank statement does not constitute a decision, it does reflect a decision taken to credit the complainant's account and, just like a payslip, this decision may be challenged by all legal means."

    Keywords:

    adjustment; date of notification; decision; general decision; individual decision; pay slip; pension; rate; receivability of the complaint; salary;



  • Judgment 2394


    98th Session, 2005
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant's appointment was terminated. "[I]t emerges quite clearly from the file that the irregularities committed [...], the careless way the Organization advertised the complainant's post before he had even had a chance to comment on the termination of his contract, and the way it admitted the unlawfulness of the termination notified on 29 August 2001 [...] only in a decision of 28 June 2003 notified to the complainant on 17 July 2003, severely harmed the complainant's legitimate interests and impaired his dignity." He is therefore entitled to a compensation for the financial and moral damage he incurred.

    Keywords:

    acceptance; allowance; competition; date of notification; delay; flaw; injury; material injury; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; post; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; staff member's interest; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 2345


    97th Session, 2004
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1(c)

    Extract:

    "[A]n organisation, as part of its duty of care for its staff, is expected to help any staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right, if such help will enable the staff member to take useful action. If it is not too late, the organisation should also provide the staff member with procedural guidance.
    In this case, [...] the Organization should have realised that the complainant was mistaken and that he did not need to wait for an authorisation before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It had enough time to point out to him that his complaint against the Director-General's decision [...] should be filed directly with the Tribunal within ninety days after the notification of the decision.
    As the complainant was not given that guidance, he failed to act in time and the complaint should be declared irreceivable. Such a ruling would not, however, be compatible with the requirements of good faith which the parties and the Tribunal must observe."

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of notification; direct appeal to tribunal; duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; time bar; time limit; tribunal;



  • Judgment 2312


    96th Session, 2004
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The complainant asserts that she was not given reasons for the decision not to renew her contract prior to the decision being taken. [...] The right to receive written reasons [...] implies the right to be given detailed reasons for a decision once it has been made, not prior to its making. This right ensures that an appeal can properly be taken from that decision."

    Keywords:

    condition; consequence; contract; date; date of notification; decision; grounds; non-renewal of contract; purpose; right; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 2304


    96th Session, 2004
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    In its Judgment 2246, the Tribunal ordered the Organization to provide the complainant within 30 days of notification of the judgment with part of the documents supplied to the Tribunal pursuant to Judgment 2192. The complainant points out that the Organization failed to do so within the time limit. "The Tribunal finds that the delay in supplying the documents cannot be attributed solely to the Organization. Prior to the expiry of the prescribed time limit, the latter [...] had written to the complainant asking him to undertake not to divulge the requested documents to third parties. Rather than reply to that letter, the complainant filed an application for execution with the Tribunal, whereas he ought to have shown good faith by replying to the defendant's request."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2192, 2246

    Keywords:

    application for execution; communication to third party; confidential evidence; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; good faith; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; liability; organisation; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2244


    95th Session, 2003
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    Although "the complainants learnt from [a communiqué], addressed to all staff [...], that their appeal had been rejected [...] they were officially notified of the dismissal of their appeals only in [subsequent] letters [...], receipt of which they were asked to acknowledge. Contrary to the argument of the defendant, that was not a confirmation, but the first official notification of the decision to reject the internal appeals they had filed."

    Keywords:

    confirmatory decision; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; information note; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;



  • Judgment 2152


    93rd Session, 2002
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 11 and 14

    Extract:

    "The requirement of good faith dealings is a two-way street. While staff members are under no obligation to assist the administration in any actions the latter may wish to take against them, they do have a duty not to so conduct themselves as to deliberately frustrate normal dealings with their employer. The latter is entitled to assume that the employees will receive and accept written communications sent to them in the normal course of affairs. [...] The fact that the complainant, by his own conduct, only took possession of the letter and became aware of his dismissal [the day after the expiry of his probation] cannot prevent the [Organisation] from having given him valid notice of dismissal."

    Keywords:

    date of notification; good faith; notice; probationary period; separation from service; staff member's duties; termination of employment;

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top