Date of notification (110,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Date of notification
Total judgments found: 65
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 903
64th Session, 1988
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Since the complainant was informed of the decision more than ninety days before filing, his complaint was not lodged within the time limit in Article VII(2) of the Statute and is not receivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint; date of notification; decision; receivability of the complaint; termination of employment; time bar;
Judgment 890
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant contends that the decision not to confirm his appointment but to extend his probation is invalid because he received overdue notice thereof. The organisation points out that though the complainant was aware of the unfavourable report, he did not himself pursue the matter. "In law the organisation must show not just that the complainant failed to act but that it gave him timely notice of the decision or else that his evasiveness prevented it from doing so."
Keywords:
administrative delay; burden of proof; date of notification; decision; evidence; organisation;
Judgment 882
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant maintains that the time-limit for lodging an internal appeal should run from the date on which he received the first pay-slip showing his new grading. To support that view he cites Judgment No. 753 of 12 June 1986. In the view of the Tribunal, the complainant "misreads Judgment 753: what the Tribunal held was that payment of salary might be treated as a challengeable decision only when there was no other."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 753
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; formal requirements; internal appeal; payslip; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 723
58th Session, 1986
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal applies the general rule on the burden of proof which requires the sender to establish the date on which a communication was received. as the organization has no evidence of the actual date of receipt of the decision, the Tribunal will accept what is said by the complainant. The complaint is therefore not time-barred.
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint; date of notification; decision; evidence; lack of evidence; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 603
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant's "later discovery that the administration's decision might have been unlawful does not affect the time limit, which is an objective matter of fact and starts on the date on which the impugned decision was notified. Any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the stability of the parties' position in law, which is the purpose and indeed the whole point of setting a time limit. The only exception is where the organisation has misled the complainant and is therefore in breach of good faith."
Keywords:
consequence; date of notification; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 602
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Vide Judgment 603, consideration 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 603
Keywords:
consequence; date of notification; decision; exception; flaw; good faith; internal appeal; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 595
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The material date was that on which the complainant received the letter of termination. The period of notice should begin on that date and the termination payment and the disability payment should be calculated and paid accordingly. "Any other conclusion would offend against the rule that a decision must not be retroactive in effect. [...] No organisation may retroactively alter at will the position of its staff. The effect of the WHO's arrangement might be to do away with one of the benefits prescribed" in the material Staff Rules. The decision is set aside; the complainant's administrative position must be reviewed.
Keywords:
date; date of notification; disability benefit; non-retroactivity; notice; payment; terminal entitlements; termination of employment;
Judgment 575
51st Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"No doubt the complainant did not notice until March 1982 the inequality of treatment which she pleads. But according to [...] the Service Regulations the [three-month] time limit for filing the appeal in this case began at the date on which the impugned decision was notified to her [July 1981], not at the later date on which she became aware of the alleged inequality."
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
Judgment 544
50th Session, 1983
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The decision not to renew the complainant's appointment was notified to him more than ninety days before the date on which he filed the complaint. "However [...] he made a request [...] for the institution of disciplinary proceedings to dispel the suspicion which he believed he was under; and [...] he [subsequently] appealed to the Director-General against the failure to convince the Disciplinary Board. His ultimate purpose [...] was to have the decision of non-renewal set aside; in other words to challenge it." It would be unduly formalistic to make the time limit run from the date of the decision not to renew his appointment was notified.
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; disciplinary procedure; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; start of time limit;
Judgment 522
49th Session, 1982
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
For the jurisdiction of the Appeals Board to be waived, Staff Rules require the Director-General's consent, and no time limit is prescribed for his decision. "The just solution may be that, provided that the complainant is not dilatory in applying for the consent of the Director-General, time does not begin to run until after the Director-General has communicated his decision."
Keywords:
date of notification; decision; direct appeal to tribunal; request by a party; start of time limit;
Judgment 517
49th Session, 1982
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The decision impugned was notified to the complainant on 25 May, and the ninety days accordingly expired on 23 August. Since 23 August was a sunday, the complaint, which was not filed until 24 August, is receivable.
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; date of notification; decision; public holiday; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 493
48th Session, 1982
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The organisation's argument is that the time limit for filing the complaint started on [the date] the complainant's contract was extended [...]. The argument would succeed only if the later decisions [...] had merely confirmed the [extension] decision. But they did not. The extension of the contract [on the mentioned date] for three months did not necessarily mean that there would be no further extension."
Keywords:
complaint; contract; date; date of notification; decision; extension of contract; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit;
Judgment 456
46th Session, 1981
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Under the general rules on the burden of proof it is for the sender to establish the date on which a communication was received. If he sends a letter by registered post or an official notice of acknowledgement for completion by the addressee he can easily furnish the proof. If he sends it by ordinary mail he may be unable to do so, and then, for want of evidence as to the actual date of receipt, the Tribunal will accept what is said by the addressee."
Keywords:
burden of proof; date of notification; decision; evidence; lack of evidence;
Judgment 447
46th Session, 1981
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Under the general rules on the burden of proof, it is for the author to establish the date on which a communication was received. [...] For want of evidence as to the actual day of receipt, the Tribunal will accept what is said by the addressee."
Keywords:
burden of proof; date of notification; decision; lack of evidence;
Judgment 432
45th Session, 1980
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
The Tribunal holds the medical report to be the final decision. In it the reasons for the decision are stated in clear and unambiguous terms. The word "decision" occurs in the text. The complaint is time-barred and irreceivable.
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; medical opinion; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 404
43rd Session, 1980
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organisation argues that the second decision under challenge merely upheld the former, that the time limit must therefore be calculated from the date of the first decision (3 October). "In fact the decision of 18 December does not merely confirm the earlier one: it rejects the complainant's application for referral of her case to the Joint Committee and thus bars resort to an internal means of redress. Whether the time limit should run from 3 October or 18 December is therefore a matter of some doubt. It may remain unsettled [...] since the complainant's pleas are manifestly without substance."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; date of notification; decision; internal appeal; organisation; refusal; start of time limit;
Judgment 390
43rd Session, 1980
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The letter was delivered by hand at the complainant's residence, and the complainant does not deny that the letter was accepted at his residence nor offer any explanation as to what could thereafter have happened to it. "The complainant admittedly received this letter; he did not reply to it denying receipt of the memorandum. In these circumstances the Tribunal finds that the complainant was notified of the decision on 13 January and that consequently the complaint was not filed in time."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; evidence; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 364
41st Session, 1978
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Time runs from the latest effective decision. If it has run out from that decision, it does not begin to run again from a later decision which does no more than affirm the earlier one."
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; date of notification; decision; new time limit; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 305
38th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"According to Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal a complaint shall not be receivable unless the internal means of redress have been exhausted and the complaint was filed within ninety days after the notification of the impugned decision. Hence only a final decision may prompt a complaint and the period of ninety days runs from the date of notification."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 1, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time limit;
Judgment 236
32nd Session, 1974
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The complaint was filed on 30 March. To be receivable it must impugn a decision notified to complainant on a date not before 30 December 1972. The decision of 17 November 1972 was the decision to transfer the complainant. "The complaint against it is clearly out of time."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; decision; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
