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

Equal treatment (188, 189, 642, 679, 827, 663,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Equal treatment
Total judgments found: 212

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >

  • Judgment 4101


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to grant special leave must be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to assume that, because special leave has been granted to one staff member, it must be granted to another, unless the two cases are identical in fact and in law. Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proved that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgment 2619, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2619

    Keywords:

    discretion; discrimination; equal treatment; special leave;



  • Judgment 4088


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign him to the General Service category upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment to a position in the Professional category.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant provides no evidence that shows that his appointment in the P category was not exceptionally extended in circumstances in which he was in a like situation to other staff members but was treated differently (see Judgment 3298, under 21).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3298

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 4073


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the reduction of the rate of the expatriate premium paid to her.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [The complainant has not] provided evidence which proves that the reduction in the expatriate premiums she received from 1 January 2015 onwards created discrimination or inequality between herself and other Global Fund staff, as she contends, in circumstances in which she was in a like situation to other staff members but was treated differently (see Judgment 3298, under 21).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3298

    Keywords:

    discrimination; equal treatment;



  • Judgment 4067


    127th Session, 2019
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his contract.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The third argument is that the decision concerning the complainant involved discrimination and unequal treatment. This principle is engaged and can be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and, if need be, give rise to redress on condition that it is based on precise and proven facts which establish the discrimination has occurred (as to its operation in the context of the OPCW, see Judgment 2660, consideration 24, and also, more generally, Judgment 4027, consideration 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2660, 4027

    Keywords:

    discrimination; equal treatment;



  • Judgment 4057


    127th Session, 2019
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reduce her pension on the basis of a reduction of the consumer price index.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant appears to argue that she (like other recipients of the pension presumably) is being treated unequally because of a practice to freeze salaries of serving staff rather than reduce them even if the methodology for salary calculation and adjustment might otherwise suggest a downward adjustment. However these two classes of individuals are not in the same position in fact or in law (see, for example, Judgment 4029, consideration 20). The former are not members of staff, the latter are.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4029

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 4029


    126th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him the two-step within-grade increase which, he argues, WHO ought to have granted him at the time of his appointment under a fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    [T]he principle of equality requires that persons in the same position in fact and in law must be treated equally. The failure to grant the complainant the two-step within-grade increase that at the material time was given to other long-term short-term staff members, who were in the same position as the complainant, constitutes unequal treatment and entitles the complainant to an award of material damages.

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 4027


    126th Session, 2018
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness and outcome of several competitions in which he participated.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls its case law according to which, “the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity” (see, for example, Judgment 3900, under 12). In light of this case law, the recommended candidate, who has already been preselected by the supervisors in accordance with paragraph 21 of the Rules of Procedure of the Appointment and Promotion Board, is not in the same situation as the other short-listed candidates. It is natural that this candidate’s curriculum vitae should be submitted to the appointing authority to elucidate the proposal made in her or his regard. The plea of a breach of the principle of equal treatment is therefore unfounded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3900

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 4022


    126th Session, 2018
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the WTO’s decision to grant him local recruitment status upon joining the Organization.

    Considerations 6-8

    Extract:

    With respect to the second ground, namely that the decision subjected him to unequal treatment and was therefore an abuse of authority, the Tribunal notes that in Judgment 2313, consideration 5, it is stated as follows:
    “The principle of equality requires that persons in like situations be treated alike and that persons in relevantly different situations be treated differently. In most cases involving allegations of unequal treatment, the critical question is whether there is a relevant difference warranting the different treatment involved. Even where there is a relevant difference, different treatment may breach the principle of equality if the different treatment is not appropriate and adapted to that difference.” [...]
    The five persons were not in the same situation in fact and in law as the complainant. [...] Inasmuch as [...] there was no violation of the principle of equal treatment, the complaint is unfounded and will be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2313

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 4018


    126th Session, 2018
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision no longer to pay him an expatriation allowance.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The different rules applying to the two categories of official concerned is of course warranted by the fact that assignment to a foreign country generally entails more difficulties when the official concerned has no previous connections with that country than when he has previously lived or worked there (see, in this connection, Judgment 2893, under 13 and 14).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2893

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 4016


    126th Session, 2018
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    The complaint is unfounded on the merits. Paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the GCE does not violate the general principle of non-discrimination. The Tribunal accepts that air traffic controllers are in a different situation than other servants subject to the GCE (their work situation is also different from that of pilots). The different treatment for this category of servants and, specifically, the lower retirement age, which was 55 at the relevant time, is justified by the specificity of their work and the contested provision is not unreasonable or unjustified, and therefore is not discriminatory. It must be taken into account that: (a) the ordinary activity of air traffic controllers is particularly stressful and mentally demanding, they are also subject to difficult working conditions and to shift work; (b) the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre operates in a complex air space with a high traffic; and (c) possibly, in addition, a low retirement age enables Eurocontrol to recruit air traffic controllers more readily over time. The question of non-discrimination and that of a proper evaluation of the specific nature of the work in question, and therefore of its exigencies, are linked. In this evaluation, which is scientifically based, Eurocontrol’s evaluations should be accepted unless they are shown to be unreliable having regard to current scientific knowledge. In the present case, for the reasons considered above, the evaluations on which the provision in question is based fall within the range of acceptability. [...]
    The establishment of a “normal” retirement age for a category of officials is a common rule in international organisations and in national laws. The fact that different rules based on the same or on different criteria (e.g. criteria referring to “a case-by-case basis” or mixed criteria) are established, does not undermine the conclusion that a rule that falls within the range of acceptability and reliability is not unlawful.

    Keywords:

    equal treatment; retirement;



  • Judgment 4000


    126th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post at grade P-4.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant claims that he was subjected to unequal treatment in the reclassification exercise. However, he has not established that he was treated differently from any other staff member who was similarly situated in fact and in law (see, for example, Judgment 3912, under 15).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3912

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 3952


    125th Session, 2018
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants impugn the Director-General’s decision not to grant them a special increment beyond the maximum salary attaching to their individual grades.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to consistent precedent, “there cannot be equality in unlawfulness” (see, for example, Judgments 3450, under 11, and 3782, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3450, 3782

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 3939


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that he was the victim of discrimination because the President of the ISAU who held office during the same period had been retained in service beyond the statutory retirement age. However, quite apart from the fact that the extension of that person’s appointment had been granted, not as requested by him for the full length of the outstanding term of office, but only for six months mainly in order to enable him to deal with day-to-day matters, the President and the Treasurer of the ISAU are not in an identical situation with regard to the application of Staff Regulation 9.5. Article V of the Constitution and Article XII of the Rules of Procedure of the Association make the President of the ISAU the most senior officer of the Association’s Executive and her or his responsibilities are very different to those of the Treasurer whose duties are of a less sensitive nature for the Association. Moreover, it is plain from the file that, unlike the Treasurer, the President was released from all official duties in order to be able to devote himself on a full-time basis to his duties as an officer of the ISAU, which again means that the two officials were not in the same situation with regard to the Organization’s staff management policy.
    At best, the position of these two persons could be said to be somewhat similar, but it was far from being absolutely identical. For this reason, the fact that their respective requests received different responses cannot be deemed discriminatory in any way.

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 3934


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Indeed, although differences in treatment with regard to extensions of appointment beyond the statutory retirement age may certainly be justified by the particular circumstances of individual cases, the Tribunal cannot but note that other staff of the Office benefited at that time from the rather liberal use that was being made of the discretion to grant extensions, which is in stark contrast to the rigorous examination to which the complainant’s request was subjected.

    Keywords:

    age limit; equal treatment; extension;



  • Judgment 3917


    125th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that it has consistently held that the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194, under 6(a), 2313, under 5, 3029, under 14, or 3787, under 3). With regard to reassignment, WHO Headquarters staff are not in an identical or similar situation to non-Headquarters staff.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 3916


    125th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that it has consistently held that the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194, under 6(a), 2313, under 5, 3029, under 14, or 3787, under 3). With regard to reassignment, WHO Headquarters staff are not in an identical or similar situation to non-Headquarters staff.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 3912


    125th Session, 2018
    International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    There is no evidence that the reclassification exercise was conducted in breach of the principles of fairness or of the rules of the ICGEB. There is no evidence that in the conduct of the reclassification exercise the complainant was treated unequally to any other staff member who was in the same situation as she was in (see, for example, Judgment 3868, consideration 6, concerning the principle of equal treatment).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3868

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 3902


    125th Session, 2018
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay him the indemnity due in the event of the closure of the CDE.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    It should be remembered that, according to firm precedent, “the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194 under 6(a), 2313, under 5, or 3029, under 14)” (see Judgment 3787, under 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 3900


    125th Session, 2018
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her contract owing to the closure of the CDE and the terms and conditions of that termination.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    [R]eference must be made to the Tribunal’s consistent precedent that “the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194, under 6(a), 2313, under 5, or 3029, under 14).” (See Judgment 3787, under 3.)
    The Tribunal is of the opinion that staff members who signed an agreement are in different legal situation to that of their colleagues, which justifies the difference in treatment to which the complainant objects (see Judgments 1934, under 7, and 1980, under 7). She therefore has no valid grounds for relying on a breach of the principle of equal treatment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1934, 1980, 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;



  • Judgment 3787


    123rd Session, 2017
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant disputes the step in grade assigned to him on his appointment as a member of a board of appeal.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194 under 6(a), 2313, under 5, or 3029, under 14). The Tribunal notes, as did the Internal Appeals Committee, that while it is true that the duties of all the members of boards of appeal are identical, their legal and administrative status is different depending on whether they are recruited externally or appointed internally.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029

    Keywords:

    equal treatment;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top