Date of notification (110,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Date of notification
Total judgments found: 65
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 2136
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Regrettably, the [Organisation] has confined its submissions to a challenge as to the receivability of the complaints. As a result, the Tribunal is unable to render a final judgment. The Tribunal orders further submissions on the merits. Before ruling on the case, it invites the [Organisation] to submit its arguments within thirty days of the date of notification of this judgment. The Tribunal shall stay its judgment on the merits until it has received sufficient information to decide on the case (on this issue, see Judgment 499)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 499
Keywords:
case law; complaint; date of notification; further submissions on the merits; iloat; interlocutory order; judgment of the tribunal; limits; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; time limit;
Judgment 2116
92nd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [organization] was cavalier in the way in which it informed [the complainant] of what was to become of the selection process. For the complainant it was particularly important that she be informed promptly whether she could expect to be appointed, so that she could start to look for another job if need be. She contends, and the [organization] does not demur, that she had the more reason to be optimistic as she had been told unofficially that of all the applicants, she stood the best chance of being appointed. In these circumstances, the [organization] ought to have [informed] her [...] that reclassification was a serious possibility for the post in question. But it did not [...] thereafter, when a decision was taken [...] to withdraw the vacancy announcement, the organization should have informed the candidates immediately. [...] The complainant was so informed in writing [...] nearly four months later. Even if [...] she was informed by telephone [...] written notification was nonetheless an obligation. The complainant's personal interests have undoubtedly been harmed and some redress for the material and moral injury she suffered is warranted [...]."
Keywords:
appointment; assignment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; date of notification; delay; duty to inform; material damages; material injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; post; post classification; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's interest; time limit; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1740
85th Session, 1998
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In line with consistent precedent the Tribunal will take [...] the date [the addressee] himself entered on the text, as the date of receipt of the decision. That he did not look at it until later is immaterial. What counts is the date at which he got it."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1718
84th Session, 1998
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute, which is about the implied rejection of a claim, serves to allow a complainant who has got no decision on his claim to act as if a final decision had been taken. "If no decision is forthcoming within sixty days of the notification of the claim to the administration, the complainant may, within a further time limit of ninety days, bring a complaint against the implied rejection, which becomes the impugned decision. [...] There is no provision for applying to the Tribunal for an order to the Director general to state a negative final decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; iloat statute; implied decision; interpretation; time limit;
Judgment 1669
83rd Session, 1997
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
"One principle of international civil service law is that a decision on a staff member's status may not work to his detriment before the date at which he had notice of it. [...] The grant of an invalidity pension does not empower the Organisation to make the termination retroactive as from the date set for the start of payment and to disregard the requirement of notice in the rules [...] Here the Council failed to observe the rules."
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; disability benefit; effect; incapacity; international civil service principles; non-retroactivity; notice; termination of employment;
Judgment 1609
82nd Session, 1997
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Although the complainants "corrected their second complaints more than ninety days after getting notice of the decisions, they did not act out of time on that account. They filed in time with the Tribunal complaint forms identifying the decisions they were impugning; their counsel duly applied for extensions of the time limit for correction; and those extensions were duly granted under Article 14 of the Tribunal's Rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 14 OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; date of notification; decision; iloat statute; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1544
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A firm line of precedent has it that though a fixed-term appointment ends automatically at the scheduled date of expiry the staff member must be told of the true grounds for non-renewal and given reasonable notice of it even if the contract does not expressly so require."
Keywords:
case law; contract; date of notification; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; grounds; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties;
Judgment 1534
81st Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The FAO submits that his complaint is irreceivable because he has failed to exhaust his internal remedies. Though he filed before he got the final decision [...] the Committee took a whole year to come up with a three-page report and the Director-General another five months to let the complainant have a decision. Such delays are exorbitant and unpardonable. Under the circumstances the complainant was entitled to come straight to the Tribunal without waiting any longer for a reply from the Director-General. The objections to receivability fail."
Keywords:
administrative delay; complaint; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1531
81st Session, 1996
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Yet, though it was lawful for the Memorandum of 23 February 1994 to set [the date of termination], not until 25 February did the complainant get notice of it. According to a general principle no decision unfavourable to an official may take effect before the date at which he gets notice of it. So the earliest date at which the complainant's separation from service might take effect was 26 February 1994, the day after he had notice of it".
Keywords:
date; date of notification; decision; effect; general principle; injury; separation from service;
Judgment 1500
80th Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute says that a complaint must be filed within ninety days after the complainant had notice of the impugned decision; Article 6(1) of the Rules sets out the requirements of form; and 6(2) says that if not satisfied that the complaint meets those requirements the registrar shall call upon the complainant to correct it within thirty days. The Rules do not say that all the formal requirements must be met by the date of filing."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(1) AND 6(2) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
complaint; correction of complaint; date; date of notification; decision; formal requirements; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 1451
79th Session, 1995
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The organisation objects to the receivability of the complaint because "the impugned decision makes amendments to the regulations and is therefore a general one about the tenor of rules. As was said in Judgment 1393, under 6 to 8, the Tribunal has often ruled on the issue, especially for the purpose of determining when the time limit starts for appeal. It has held that where a general decision gives rise to decisions affecting individuals the time limit is set off only on notification to the official of the individual decision that affects him. Moreover, as was held in Judgment 1000, under 12, the employee may, when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly, 'challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision [...] that affords the basis of the individual one'. In sum, the staff member need not ordinarily impugn at once a general decision he believes has caused him injury but may, without any risk of being time-barred, wait until the general decision affects him in the form of an individual one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1393
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complaint; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1408
78th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The decision not to allow the abatement of internal tax had a continuing effect which was reflected in each of the complainant's payslips."
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; payslip; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 1393
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Consistent rulings by the Tribunal make it plain that the act which is challengeable and so sets off the time limit will ordinarily be some individual decision notified to the staff member. Only that decision affords him unquestionable and final notice that the time limit is set off and that he will have to act if he wants to assert his rights."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 323, 398, 624, 625, 626, 902, 963, 1081, 1101, 1134, 1148
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; date of notification; individual decision; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1212
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-4
Extract:
The complainant disputes the lawfulness of a decision to dismiss her while she was on probation. She alleges breach of her right to a hearing before dismissal. She relies on a rule for which there was a long line of precedents, among them Judgments 987 [...] and 1082 [...]. The rule is that a contract of employment creates a relationship of trust and that lays on the organization a duty to inform the staff member of its intention of dismissing him and let him defend his interests. The organization moreover must disclose its intention before it gives notice; disclosing it just before the dismissal takes effect will not do. The Tribunal holds that CERN "utterly disregarded her right to be given a prior hearing so that she might comment in detail on the reasons why she was being dismissed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 987, 1082
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; due process; organisation's duties; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 1181
73rd Session, 1992
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complaint raises a question of receivability. Under Article 43 (1) of the Staff Regulations an internal appeal must be lodged within thirty days of the date on which a decision was notified. The complainant pleads that he made a material mistake by reading the thirty days as one calendar month. "Time limits for internal appeals must be strictly complied with. The complainant failed to abide by the Staff Regulations, and the mistake he supposedly made is irrelevant because the organization did not seek to mislead him. Since he has not exhausted the internal means of redress, his complaint is irreceivable under Article VII(1) of the Tribunal's Statute."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 43 OF THE INTERPOL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
date of notification; delay; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; mandatory time limit; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1115
71st Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the complaint was filed on the ninetieth day after the date of notification of the impugned decision, it is receivable in keeping with Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Rules of court and Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 1106
71st Session, 1991
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"According to Article VII(2) of the Tribunal's Statute a complaint will not be receivable unless filed within ninety days of the date of notification of the impugned decision, and Article 6(3) of the Rules of Court says that the 'date of despatch' of the complaint shall alone be taken into account." The complainant got notification of the impugned decision on 7 March 1990. Having waited until 6 June 1990 to post his complaint, he ran over the time limit by one day: the complaint is time-barred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1052
69th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant got word of the decision not to renew his contract before receiving formal notification. "The only date that matters for the purpose of reckoning the time limit in [Article] VII(2) [of the Tribunal's Statute] is the date of formal notification of the final decision in writing."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(2) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; formal requirements; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 977
66th Session, 1989
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Having made his 13.1 request for review on 7 October 1987, the complainant submitted a 'complaint' under 13.2 on 8 April 1988. The lodging of the 13.1 request and the substance of it show that the complainant had become aware of the 'treatment complained of' over six months before he lodged his 'complaint', and it was therefore out of time under 13.2."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 13.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS;
ARTICLE 13.2 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
date of notification; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 930
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The organisation was authorised to confine its reply to the issue of receivability. But it was unable to show that it had given timely notice of the President's decision. The complaint is receivable.
Keywords:
burden of proof; case sent back to organisation; date of notification; decision; evidence; further submissions on the merits; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply confined to receivability;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
