Judgment No. 2966
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the decision forming the subject of the [...] appeal is that of 21 June 2007 informing the complainant of his reassignment to Bangkok, which was confirmed by the memorandum of 15 August 2007, after he had written to the Director-General to challenge it on 3 July 2007.
The Organization asserts that the complainant was notified of the memorandum of 15 August 2007 by means of an e-mail sent to him on 16 August and that this memorandum was also handed to his secretary on the same day.
The complainant disputes the validity of such notification, as did the Joint Appeals Board, which considered in its report that using e-mail to communicate such an important decision as reassignment to the field was unacceptable. That is why it deemed the date of valid notification to be that on which the complainant returned to Headquarters at the end of his mission and why it declared the appeal to be receivable. However, apart from the fact that, in principle, the Tribunal deems notification by e-mail to be valid (see Judgments 2677, under 2, and 2947, under 12), the only question that arises in the instant case, in order to determine the beginning of the 60-day period in which the complainant could refer the matter to the Joint Appeals Board, is that of the date on which he learnt of the disputed decision.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2677, 2947
Keywords
notification by email
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law establishes that, if an appeal was time-barred and the internal appeals body was wrong to hear it, the Tribunal will not entertain a complaint challenging the decision taken on a recommendation of that body (see, for example, Judgments 775, under 1, and 2297, under 13).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 775, 2297
Keywords
internal appeals body; internal appeal; time bar
|
