|
|
 |
|
|
Notification (680,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Notification
Total judgments found: 25
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4948
139th Session, 2025
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de le suspendre de ses fonctions avec maintien de son traitement et avec effet immédiat.
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
Toujours sur les violations alléguées du cadre juridique applicable, le requérant soutient, en deuxième lieu, que la communication de la décision de suspension rendue oralement le 11 octobre 2021 et dont la notification écrite n’a suivi que le lendemain, le 12 octobre 2021, aurait été faite en violation du paragraphe b) de la règle 110.5.
Mais, dès lors que la disposition statutaire exige uniquement que l’intéressé soit informé par écrit de la décision, sans pour autant préciser que ce soit immédiatement après que celle-ci a été prise, la notification par écrit de la décision de suspension le lendemain du jour où elle a été communiquée oralement au requérant ne constitue pas une irrégularité qui entacherait d’illégalité la décision attaquée ou la décision de suspension du 11 octobre. Le Tribunal a déjà rappelé que les motifs d’une décision peuvent être communiqués à un membre du personnel même lors d’une réunion (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4455, au considérant 11, et 4451, au considérant 11), et la notification orale suivie d’une notification écrite, ainsi que l’a fait la CPI en l’espèce, respectait les dispositions statutaires applicables.
En troisième lieu, le requérant avance que l’organisation aurait également violé le cadre juridique applicable en raison de la motivation insuffisante de la mesure de suspension. Il fait valoir à cet égard qu’il était dans l’impossibilité de connaître les raisons sous-jacentes de la décision puisqu’aucun élément spécifique ne lui aurait été communiqué à cet égard.
Mais, bien que la motivation écrite de la mesure de suspension appliquée ait été succincte et exprimée avec des termes en apparence généraux, le Tribunal rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4451, au considérant 11), la motivation requise peut aussi ressortir d’un avis oral qui informe le fonctionnaire de la décision ou d’une une procédure préalable (voir, entre autres, les jugements 4397, au considérant 15, 1757, au considérant 5, et 1590, au considérant 7), voire même d’une contestation ultérieure (voir les jugements 3316, au considérant 7, et 1590, au considérant 7).
Or, il ressort du dossier que le requérant a été informé par le Procureur lors de l’entretien du 11 octobre 2021 des motifs de sa suspension, ainsi qu’en témoigne le fait qu’il a exprimé ses observations sur les motifs en question lors de l’entretien suivant avec celui-ci en date du 15 octobre 2021. […]
Dans ce contexte, le Tribunal estime que la motivation de la décision était suffisante pour permettre à l’intéressé de comprendre ce qui en constituait les fondements et de se déterminer en conséquence quant aux voies à suivre afin de faire valoir son point de vue et contester la mesure appliquée.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 3316, 4397, 4451, 4455
Keywords:
grounds; motivation; notification; suspension;
Judgment 4935
139th Session, 2025
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to abolish his position and terminate his appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A] decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff member occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual’s rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. The Tribunal has further stated that the need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises precisely because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested (see, for example, Judgment 3041, considerations 8 and 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; notice; notification; reorganisation; right of appeal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The central question […] is whether IOM gave the complainant the required notification of the abolition of his post and the termination of his appointment. [T]he Tribunal does not impose on international organizations a duty to provide staff members whose positions are abolished with the full set of internal documents used as a basis for such decision. Rather, the Tribunal requires an organization to give such staff members notice within the required time and sufficient reasons for the decision to abolish their post and for any subsequent decision, including the termination of their appointment. This is the expressed purport of Regulation 9.4. It also accords with the well-settled case law that an international organisation necessarily has power to restructure, and, in so doing, may abolish posts. As well, it accords with the case law stated, for example, in consideration 7 of Judgment 3234, that a decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff member occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual’s rights and that these rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3234
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; notice; notification; reorganisation; right of appeal; termination of employment;
Judgment 4923
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de classer sa plainte pour propos mensongers.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[L]a jurisprudence du Tribunal admet que la décision d’une autorité compétente soit ainsi matériellement portée à la connaissance du fonctionnaire concerné, comme le veut d’ailleurs un usage répandu dans les organisations internationales, par la voie d’un message signé d’une autre autorité (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4809, au considérant 4, 4654, au considérant 17, ou 3352, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3352, 4654, 4809
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority; final decision; notification;
Judgment 4922
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de classer sa plainte pour harcèlement moral à l’issue de la procédure d’évaluation préliminaire de celle-ci.
Considerations 8-11
Extract:
Le délai de recours était inopposable au requérant à un triple titre.
En premier lieu, il résulte d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal que la charge de la preuve de la notification d’une décision administrative incombe à l’organisation concernée (voir, par exemple, les jugements 3871, au considérant 9, 3034, au considérant 13, ou 2494, au considérant 4). En outre, il va de soi que cette notification n’est régulière que si elle permet au fonctionnaire intéressé d’avoir une connaissance exacte de la teneur de la décision en cause. Or, compte tenu des ambiguïtés, ci-dessus mises en évidence, que comportaient les indications fournies au requérant lors de la réunion du 5 décembre 2016, le Tribunal estime que, en l’espèce, la preuve d’une notification régulière de la décision prise par la Conseillère pour l’éthique n’est pas formellement rapportée, sachant que l’éventuelle notification officieuse dont celle-ci aurait fait l’objet ne saurait être reconnue comme valable. Dès lors, le délai d’un mois imparti par l’alinéa a) du paragraphe 7 des anciens Statuts du Conseil d’appel pour former une réclamation ne courait pas à l’encontre de cette décision.
En deuxième lieu, il sied de relever que, même si l’on admettait que la notification de la décision ait été régulière, le fait que Mme T. ait laissé sans réponse les courriels des 19 décembre 2016 et 10 janvier 2017 précités, et plus spécifiquement le premier, qui lui avait été adressé dans le délai d’un mois ainsi prévu, ferait obstacle à l’opposabilité de ce délai. Selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, une organisation est en effet tenue, en vertu de son devoir de sollicitude à l’égard de ses fonctionnaires, de dissiper l’erreur dans laquelle se trouve un agent quant à l’exercice de son droit de recours, lorsqu’elle constate que celui-ci se méprend à ce sujet et qu’il serait encore possible pour lui d’agir en temps utile (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4369, au considérant 4, 2713, au considérant 3 d), et 2345, au considérant 1 c)). Dès lors qu’il ressortait du courriel du 19 décembre 2016, comme il a été dit, que le requérant n’avait pas compris qu’aucune décision écrite ne lui serait notifiée après la réunion, et étant donné que le délai de recours contre la décision du 5 décembre 2016 n’avait pas encore expiré à la date de ce courriel, il appartenait à la Conseillère pour l’éthique de clarifier ce malentendu afin de mettre l’intéressé à même d’user de son droit de recours. Le non-respect de cette exigence exclut, en tout état de cause, que la réclamation ultérieurement introduite puisse être regardée comme tardive.
En troisième lieu, il convient de souligner que […] le classement d’une plainte pour harcèlement relevait en réalité de la compétence de la Directrice générale, et non de celle de la Conseillère pour l’éthique. Or, il résulte de la jurisprudence du Tribunal que, lorsqu’il ne ressort pas clairement des indications données à un fonctionnaire que celles-ci constituent la communication d’une décision administrative, «il peut exister des circonstances qui amènent le fonctionnaire à conclure raisonnablement qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une décision définitive» et qu’il en va ainsi «surtout si [...] rien ne permet de penser que la question en cause a été examinée par une personne habilitée à prendre une décision définitive en la matière» (voir notamment les jugements 3861, au considérant 5, 3849, au considérant 8, et 2644, au considérant 8). Le Tribunal estime que, dans la mesure où la Conseillère pour l’éthique n’avait ainsi pas compétence pour procéder au classement de la plainte du requérant et où ce dernier pouvait dès lors légitimement douter que les explications données par Mme T. lors de la réunion du 5 décembre 2016 visaient à lui communiquer une décision prise par celle-ci à cet effet, le présent cas d’espèce relève de cette jurisprudence. En telle hypothèse, le délai de recours ne court à l’égard du fonctionnaire concerné qu’à compter de la notification ultérieure d’une décision formelle.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2345, 2494, 2644, 2713, 3034, 3849, 3861, 3871, 4369
Keywords:
administrative decision; duty of care; internal appeal; notification; time limit;
Judgment 4850
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Appeals Board carefully analysed, in detail and over several pages, the evidence concerning the factual question of whether there had been notification to the complainant. It observed, correctly, that the burden of proof that notification had been given fell on the person who sent the document, in this case the Organization, citing Judgment 3871, consideration 9. Its analysis and conclusion that the Organization had not proved that notification had been given is unexceptionable and certainly does not reveal a manifest error. In the impugned decision of 23 August 2021, the Director General accepted the pivotal significance of the factual question about notification. […] [The Director General] challenged the reasoning of the Appeal Board. But, in the face of that reasoning, his analysis is unpersuasive.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; executive head; medical opinion; notification;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied the complainant suffered a moral injury as a result of being denied the right of review of the medical assessment leading directly to the termination of his employment, effective 1 October 2018. He is entitled to moral damages which are assessed in the sum of 10,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
burden of proof; duty to inform; loss of opportunity; medical opinion; moral damages; notification; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to inform; loss of opportunity; mandatory time limit; medical opinion; notification; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment 4809
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The wording of th[e] letter [in question] makes it plain that it was not intended to convey a decision taken by the Executive Director but by the Director-General himself, in a procedure commonly used in such cases at the ILO and, mutatis mutandis, in many other international organisations. The matter of whether the power to sign this letter had been granted is therefore irrelevant and the plea must be dismissed in accordance with the Tribunal’s well-established case law in this matter (see, for example, Judgments 4291, considerations 17 and 18, 3352, consideration 7, and 2836, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 3352, 4291
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegation of power; final decision; notification;
Judgment 4711
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of automatic step advancement pursuant to the introduction of a new career system.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The fact that staff members were informed only 15 days before the entry into force of the reform had no material consequences, considering that no action was required of them prior to its implementation.
Keywords:
duty to inform; notification;
Judgment 4680
136th Session, 2023
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with forfeiture of an indemnity for loss of job.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The question of interpretation which arises […] is whether Article 23.2(g) obliges the Director-General to notify the staff member of the specific disciplinary measure she or he then intends to impose, or it is sufficient to repeat, as happened in this case, that a disciplinary measure of those listed will be imposed. The provision is ambiguous. One meaning is that the words “notify the staff member [...] that a disciplinary measure among those listed in Article 23.3 of these Regulations will be imposed” requires notification of what disciplinary measure will be imposed, with the words “among those listed in Article 23.3” identifying the four measures from which one can be chosen and nominated. The other meaning is that it is sufficient to repeat that an unidentified disciplinary measure of those listed in Article 23.3 will be imposed. In Judgment 4639, consideration 3, the Tribunal stated: […]
It would obviously favour the staff member to treat Article 23.2(g) as requiring disclosure of the specific disciplinary measure which will be imposed (subject, of course, to the procedures in Article 23 itself) in order to arm her or him with information relevant to the question of whether to request that a Disciplinary Board examine her or his case. It would usually be the case that the staff member would be far more inclined to seek such an examination if dismissal was in contemplation rather than, for example, a written censure. As was noted in one of the Tribunal’s earlier reported cases, Judgment 203, consideration 2, the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of discharge or summary dismissal could cause serious harm to the staff member and her or his family. This interpretation, namely that the specific disciplinary measure proposed must be notified pursuant to Article 23.2(g), would also give rise to a fairer and more balanced procedure. It would be fairer because it would give the concerned staff member an opportunity to argue before the Disciplinary Board that the specific disciplinary measure in contemplation was disproportionate, or otherwise inappropriate, as well as giving the Disciplinary Board an opportunity to review what is in contemplation in formulating the recommendation required by Annex VII(2)(c) of the Staff Regulations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4639
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; interpretation; notification;
Judgment 4654
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his employment contract.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[T]he [...] letter [...], which did contain a clear notification of that decision, expressly stated that the Legal Counsel was merely conveying the Director General’s decision. However, the Tribunal’s case law recognises that the decision of the executive head of an organisation may in fact be notified to the official concerned in a letter signed by another senior official, as is common practice (see, for example, Judgments 4291, consideration 17, 4139, consideration 6, 3352, consideration 7, and 2924, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2924, 3352, 4139, 4291
Keywords:
delegated authority; notification;
Judgment 4609
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the new decision taken by UNESCO pursuant to Judgment 3936 in the context of her appeal against the decision to transfer her to Paris.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law shows that an organisation that is intending to transfer a staff member is obliged to ensure that the implementation of that measure is preceded by proper notice enabling the staff member to make the necessary arrangements for the change in her or his duty station (see [...] Judgment 1556, consideration 12, Judgment 1496, considerations 11 and 13, and [...] Judgment 810, consideration 7). In the present case, the period of 11 days given to the complainant under the decision of 18 February 2013 to take up her new post at Headquarters clearly fell short of that requirement, particularly given that in practical terms the transfer in question involved moving from Kinshasa to Paris.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1496, 1556
Keywords:
duty station; notification; time limit; transfer;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant is right in contending that the unlawfulness of the impugned decision caused her moral injury. The lack of advance information provided to the complainant about the content of the new duties she was to assume and the unduly short period of time she was given to take up her new post in Paris were such as to cause her stress and anxiety and adversely affected her rights and her dignity, which is characteristic of that form of injury.
Keywords:
duty to inform; moral injury; notification; post description; time limit; transfer;
Judgment 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[The complainant] contends that the request for reconsideration he had initially lodged [...] did not receive a reply from the Secretary-General within the period of 45 days specified [...]. According to ITU’s explanations on this point, a decision on the request for reconsideration had in fact been taken but owing to an unfortunate administrative error had been sent to the complainant’s old work email address, meaning that the complainant, who no longer had access to that address, could not be aware of it. That error is plainly regrettable, but the Tribunal notes that, under Staff Rule 11.1.3(7)(b)(ii), a staff member who submits a request for reconsideration may, if she or he does not receive a reply to that request within the prescribed time limit, submit an appeal to the Appeal Board, as the complainant did in this case. Moreover, it is not disputed that ITU forwarded the decision rejecting the complainant’s request for reconsideration and the appended documents to him during the appeal procedure before the Appeal Board and that he had the opportunity to comment on those documents in that procedure. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the failure to provide proper notification of the decision in question did not, in the present case, in fact breach the complainant’s right of appeal nor in consequence render the final decision taken at the end of the internal appeal procedure unlawful.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; notification; time limit;
Judgment 4347
131st Session, 2021
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director of PAHO to impose on him the disciplinary measure of reassignment with reduction in grade.
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant argues that he was disadvantaged by two distinct and irregular parallel processes, as he was not informed of the investigation into the harassment complaint against him while he was involved in Mr M.’s performance evaluation process. There is no reason for which the complainant should have been notified that he was the subject of a harassment complaint while he was involved in the performance evaluation process for the staff member who raised the complaint. The Ethics Office acted within its competence in deciding to notify him only after the investigation into his alleged misconduct had begun in order to preserve the evidence and to eliminate the potential for witness tampering or intimidation. His rights were not infringed by the delay in his notification (see, for example, Judgment 3295, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3295
Keywords:
investigation; notification;
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, “[t]he Tribunal’s 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 himself”.
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 complainant’s arguments, the Tribunal’s 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 member’s 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 counsel’s office as his address for notification purposes, which the parties do not dispute, any notification made to that address is valid.
The decision’s 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 WHO’s refusal to reinstate him after the decision to dismiss him was set aside.
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s 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 Tribunal’s 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 complainant’s 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 organisation’s 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 Tribunal’s 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 addressee’s 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;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
