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

Notification (680,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Notification
Total judgments found: 13

  • Judgment 4291


    130th Session, 2020
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    As stated in Judgment 4139, consideration 6, ď[t]he Tribunalís case law recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organization may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management (see, for example, Judgments 2836, consideration 7, 2837, consideration 4, 2871, consideration 7, 2924, consideration 5, or 3352, consideration 7). However, it must be clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head himselfĒ.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 2837, 2871, 2924, 3352, 4139

    Keywords:

    decision-maker; delegated authority; final decision; notification;



  • 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 3871


    124th Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges WHOís refusal to reinstate him after the decision to dismiss him was set aside.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunalís case law, it is incumbent upon the sender of a document to prove, in the event of any dispute in this regard, that it was actually received by its addressee (see, for example, Judgment 2074, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2074

    Keywords:

    notification;



  • 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;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal emphasises that it is desirable that an organisation make it absolutely clear in a communication that it constitutes notice that the contract will not be renewed and language to this effect should be used. Also, it is desirable for the organisation to say in such a communication that it manifests a final decision against which the official can appeal in a manner prescribed in the organisationís rules and regulations.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; notification;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    It might be thought that the clear intimation from the Director of HRM that the contract would not be renewed should be viewed as conditional and thus should not be considered notification of a decision not to renew the contract. That is to say, it should not be taken to be notification of a final decision because there remained to be determined, before such a decision could be made, whether another position might be found for the complainant. However, the fact that a communication such as this might advert to further steps being taken to reassign or re-deploy an official, does not, of itself, result in the communication not being notification of a decision not to renew (see Judgment 634, consideration 2). Equally, however, in the event of non-renewal there must be a definite decision not to renew coupled with notification to the official (see Judgment 2104, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 634, 2104

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; non-renewal of contract; notification;



  • Judgment 3847


    124th Session, 2017
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In both complaints, the complainant contests the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The question whether the first complaint is receivable turns on whether, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article VII of the Tribunalís Statute, the complainant filed it within the stipulated ninety days following the decision not to extend her contract. The principle of good faith dealings which applies to the relations between international civil servants and the organisations that employ them prevents a staff member from thwarting timely notification by her or his conduct. Accordingly, in considerations 11 and 12 of Judgment 2152 the Tribunal stated as follows [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2152

    Keywords:

    good faith; notification; time bar;



  • Judgment 3838


    124th Session, 2017
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, it is for the organisation issuing and communicating the impugned decision to establish the date of receipt by the addressee. It may be that it is impossible to prove this, for example because the mode of delivery does not allow the date of receipt to be ascertained. If such is the case, the Tribunal will ordinarily accept the addresseeís account concerning the date of receipt unless what she or he says is patently implausible. Thus, a complaint will be deemed to have been filed within the time limit if it was submitted within 90 days of the date of receipt indicated by the complainant (see Judgments 447, under 2, 456, under 7, 723, under 4, 930, under 8, 2473, under 4, and 2494, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 447, 456, 723, 930

    Keywords:

    notification;



  • Judgment 3738


    123rd Session, 2017
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his claim for a termination indemnity.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to firm precedent, it is for the sender of a document to prove its date of receipt by the recipient in the event of a dispute on this matter (see, for example, Judgments 456, under 7, 723, under 4, 2473, under 4, 2494, under 4, 3034, under 13, and 3253, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 456, 723, 2473, 2494, 3034, 3253

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; notification;



  • Judgment 3737


    123rd Session, 2017
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that he was subjected to harassment.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to firm precedent, it is for the sender of a document to establish its date of receipt by the recipient in the event of a dispute on this matter (see, for example, Judgments 456, under 7, 723, under 4, 2473, under 4, 2494, under 4, 3034, under 13, or 3253, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 456, 723, 2473, 2494, 3034, 3253

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; notification;



  • Judgment 3704


    122nd Session, 2016
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the former Director of the ILO Office in Berlin to apply to her the sanction of warning.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The message that the original decision would be sent by post could possibly and reasonably have confused and misled the complainant causing uncertainty as to when she was being notified of the decision and whether the time limit for filing her grievance ran from [the date] when she received the e-mail. It is accordingly determined that this is an exception which permitted the complainant to file her grievance with the JAAB when she did. The complaint is therefore receivable. The Tribunal considers that a statement in HRDís decision, or in the e-mail by which it was sent, making it clear that the time limit for filing a grievance with the JAAB would have run from the date on which the complainant received the scanned copy, would have put the matter beyond doubt.

    Keywords:

    notification; time limit;



  • Judgment 3675


    122nd Session, 2016
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests IOMís decision to abolish his post and not to renew his fixed-term appointment.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant was notified of the decision to reject his Action Prior to the Lodging of an Appeal as time-barred by an e-mail dated 19 September 2013, which is not only shown to have been opened that same day but was also expressly acknowledged as read by the complainant in his e-mail of 23 September 2013. Therefore, in line with the Tribunalís case law, the date of notification of the decision to reject his Action Prior to the Lodging of an Appeal as time-barred was 19 September 2013, when he received the decision by e-mail, and not 4 October 2013, when he claims to have received the hard copy of the 19 September decision (see Judgments 2966, consideration 8, and 3351, considerations 13 to 16).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2966, 3351

    Keywords:

    notification; time bar;



  • Judgment 3660


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his transfer, complaining that he was ousted from his job, without notice or prior consultation, and assigned to a ďfictitious jobĒ.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [I]t is plain that the manner in which the decision was conveyed to the complainant, who had been in the service of the Organisation for nearly 20 years at the material time and whose excellent performance had been recognised by it, was likely to hurt, shock and upset him.

    Keywords:

    humiliation; notification;



  • Judgment 3034


    111th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    [I]n accordance with the principles governing the burden of proof when determining the receivability of complaints, it is up to the organisation which intends to rely on late submission to establish the date on which the impugned decisions were notified (see Judgments 723, under 4, or 2494, under 4). Since the Agency has failed to produce any acknowledgement of receipt or other document attesting to the date on which the decisions in question were notified, it has not furnished proof of the alleged late submission.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 723, 2494

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; final decision; late filing; notification; time bar;


 
Last updated: 28.10.2020 ^ top