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

Written rule (215, 230, 227, 228, 231,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Written rule
Total judgments found: 101

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >



  • Judgment 2944


    109th Session, 2010
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 48

    Extract:

    "[B]reaches of private financial obligations on the part of international civil servants are incompatible with the rules of conduct by which they must abide (see, for example Judgments 53, under 7, 1480, under 3, or 1584, under 9)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 1480, 1584

    Keywords:

    breach; conduct; debt; misconduct; staff member's duties; written rule;



  • Judgment 2936


    109th Session, 2010
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "[T]rifling differences in the respective situations of staff members do not justify different treatment where the people concerned are in what may be regarded as comparable, albeit not identical positions vis--vis the rule applying to them [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 792, 2066

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; difference; equal treatment; general principle; right; same; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2926


    109th Session, 2010
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 and 9

    Extract:

    The complainant worked for the ILO Staff Union from 2 August to 31 December 2004 under a special short-term contract. Subsequently, he continued to make his services available to the Staff Union without any written contract. He asks the Tribunal to find that he has been an ILO official since August 2004.
    "The Tribunal considers [...] that the fact that the complainant continued to make his services available to the Staff Union in the absence of any contract, that he was given access to the material facilities which the Office provides for the Staff Union, and that performance appraisal reports were drawn up for him could not confer on him a status that had not been granted by a formal administrative document. It follows that when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal, he was not in a position to invoke the status of an official bound to the Organization by a contract concluded in accordance with the rules in force. [...] It follows that the complainant, since he lacks the status of an ILO official, has no access to the Tribunal, which must decline jurisdiction and dismiss the complaint."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; contract; effect; facilities; formal requirements; no provision; non official; performance report; short-term; staff union; status of complainant; written rule;



  • Judgment 2922


    109th Session, 2010
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he procedure leading to titularisation was never undertaken in the case of the complainant. It may be concluded from the foregoing that the complainant did not have the status of an established official within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the [ILO] Staff Regulations. It follows that she is not justified in claiming that there has been a violation of the formal and procedural rules applicable to the termination of the appointment of an established official [...]."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 2.1 of the ILO Staff Regulations

    Keywords:

    breach; formal flaw; formal requirements; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment; titularization; written rule;



  • Judgment 2907


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, international organisations may undertake restructuring by reducing or reassigning their staff, even for the sole purpose of making budgetary savings (see, for example, Judgment 2156, under 8). However, each and every individual decision adopted in the context of such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules and in particular the fundamental rights of the staff concerned."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2156

    Keywords:

    budgetary reasons; case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; due process; implied decision; official; organisation; organisation's duties; reassignment; reorganisation; right; staff reduction; written rule;



  • Judgment 2882


    108th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "Although rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must not be construed too pedantically or set traps for staff members who are defending their rights. If these staff members break such a rule, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. Consequently, a staff member who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal (see Judgments 1734, under 3, and 1832, under 6). [...] The fact that an appeal is mistakenly submitted directly to the Appeal Board, as occurred in this case, cannot entail the irreceivability of the appeal. The Appeal Board has a duty to forward to the Director General any document which is intended for his attention and which has been sent to it in error, in order that it may be treated as a request for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 1832

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; interpretation; organisation's duties; proportionality; purpose; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; written rule;



  • Judgment 2863


    108th Session, 2010
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The complainant was notified of the decision he impugns before the Tribunal on 11 March 2008 and filed his complaint against the Eurocontrol Agency on 11 June 2008. The Agency contends that the complainant had three months as from 11 March 2008 to submit a complaint to the Tribunal in accordance with Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency.
    "The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the conditions for the receivability of complaints submitted to it are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. An organisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal stipulates that '[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published'.
    It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 to set a different time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal by specifying that this must be done within three months rather than within ninety days. In the instant case the complainant, who was notified of the impugned decision on 11 March 2008, had ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal. While he is quite right in arguing that this period of time began on the day after that on which he had received notification and not on the date of notification itself, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law, his complaint is nonetheless time-barred, since this ninety-day period expired on 10 June. His complaint filed on 11 June 2008 was lodged on the ninety-first day after the day following that on which he was notified of the decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
    Organization rules reference: Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency

    Keywords:

    complaint; condition; date; date of notification; difference; flaw; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; organisation's duties; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; written rule;



  • Judgment 2847


    107th Session, 2009
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The purpose of the family allowances which Eurocontrol pays to officials with dependent children is to contribute financially towards these children's maintenance, and the aim of the rule laid down in [Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations], according to which the amount of these allowances must be reduced by the amount of allowances of the same kind paid from other sources, such as family allowances paid by a national authority, is to prevent two benefits from being granted concurrently for the same children, since this would plainly result in the unlawful enrichment of the recipient family.
    In this regard, the fact that the [national authority] does not make payments to the official himself, but to his spouse (or, as in this case, his partner), is of course immaterial. If the two benefits in question are being paid for the maintenance of the same children, they cannot be drawn simultaneously by the parents without contravening the very purpose of this rule against concurrent benefits."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency

    Keywords:

    accumulation; amount; breach; dependent child; domestic law; family allowance; marital status; parent; purpose; rate; same; staff regulations and rules; unjust enrichment; written rule;



  • Judgment 2837


    107th Session, 2009
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 and 8

    Extract:

    The complainant was not granted the personal promotion she was eligible for and the Organization did not respect its obligation to publish the list of officials who were granted such a promotion.
    "Contrary to the Organization, which maintains that its failure to publish the list could not have caused any injury to the complainant and in no way influenced the decision to refuse her such a promotion, the Tribunal considers that non publication of the list in question deprived the complainant of information that she might have found useful in filing a request for review [...].
    The impugned decision must therefore be set aside [...], and the case must be referred back to the Organization so that it may publish the list of officials who were granted a personal promotion [...]. The complainant may, if she so wishes, file a request for review within a fixed period from the date of publication of the list in question."

    Keywords:

    breach; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; decision quashed; organisation's duties; personal promotion; publication; refusal; time limit; written rule;



  • Judgment 2833


    107th Session, 2009
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    In March 2006 the complainant, who had been assigned to Zimbabwe since 1996, applied for a transfer, in the same grade, to ILO headquarters in Geneva to occupy the advertised post of Senior Procurement Officer. His candidature was rejected because he failed to meet three of the core requirements listed in the vacancy notice. Circular No. 658, series 6, states that the Office should ensure, in particular, that 'priority for mobility is given to staff members who have completed their tours of duty', i.e. their assignment in a particular duty station.
    "It is not disputed that the complainant can avail himself of the mobility rules to return, as and when appropriate, to the Organization's headquarters. But that does not, of course, mean that he has a right to return to headquarters to take up a particular post without it being determined beforehand that the post to which he aspires corresponds to his skills."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Circular No. 658, series 6

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; competition; condition; criteria; duty station; field; grade; grounds; headquarters; organisation's duties; period; post; priority; qualifications; reassignment; refusal; request for transfer; right; same; vacancy notice; written rule;



  • Judgment 2805


    106th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4, 5 and 7

    Extract:

    The complainant lodged an appeal against the decision to reject his complaint of harassment, saying that his counsel would provide further details at a later date. The EPO dismissed the appeal due to the absence of a statement in support thereof. Before the Tribunal, the Organisation contends that the complainant failed to exhaust the internal means of redress.
    "The issue at the centre of the complaint is whether it is necessary to provide grounds of appeal."
    "There is no express provision in the Service Regulations or in Circular No. 286 requiring that grounds of appeal be specified when lodging an appeal."
    "Where regulations and rules or other written documents are silent as to a matter, a term dealing with that matter may be implied, but only if it is so obviously comprehended within the text used in the regulations and rules or other document that its statement is unnecessary, or, if the term to be implied is necessary to give effect to some other term."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; general principle; interpretation; no provision; provision; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2760


    105th Session, 2008
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant, a Canadian national, married a person of the same sex, as she is permitted to do under the law in force in Canada. She immediately informed the Agency of her new marital status and applied for the dependency benefits to which staff members with a spouse are eligible, but her application was rejected. The defendant points out that, for the purpose of applying its Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, it has a definition of the term "spouse" which refers only to the partners of a union between persons of opposite sex, since the Guide to Dependency Benefits, which was drawn up for the staff, indicates that the term "'[s]pouse' for all purposes of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules is defined to mean the husband or wife". "But this mere information document, which was prepared by the Administration and has no normative value, clearly cannot prescribe the adoption of a restrictive definition which does not appear in the applicable texts themselves.
    Furthermore, while the Tribunal notes that the same definition was also given in a Notice to the Staff of 11 July 2005, that document likewise could not narrow the scope of the concept of 'spouse' to which the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules refer. Although the secretariat of an organisation may always circulate a Notice to the Staff to clarify certain provisions of its staff regulations and rules, such a notice cannot impose on staff any restrictive conditions other than those stipulated in the provisions themselves."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Guide to Dependency Benefits

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; applicable law; binding character; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; definition; dependant; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; information note; limits; marital status; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purpose; refusal; request by a party; same; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2747


    105th Session, 2008
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The complainant alleges that the regulations governing the creation of posts - in particular Regulation 2.2 of the Staff Regulations and Article 102.6.15 of the General Regulations of the UPU - have been violated. "[T]he Tribunal notes [...] that the complainant is entitled to rely on all the provisions of the General Regulations and Staff Regulations, including those which primarily concern relations between the Council of Administration and the Director General insofar as a breach of these provisions may affect his personal situation."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 2.2 and Article 102.6.15 of the General Regulations of the UPU

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; creation of post; executive body; executive head; injury; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2742


    105th Session, 2008
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 34

    Extract:

    "It was said in Judgment 2510 that 'an international organisation necessarily has power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including by the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff'. The word 'necessarily' in that statement indicates that that power will be implied even if it is not expressly conferred by the relevant regulations. However, that power cannot be implied if it is contrary to the regulations."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2510

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; creation of post; discretion; interpretation; organisation; reorganisation; written rule;



  • Judgment 2708


    104th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    For the period 24 June 2002 to 31 December 2003 the complainant was given a fixed-term contract, financed from technical cooperation funds, which was extended until 30 June 2004. The complainant was subsequently given two external collaboration contracts, the second one ending on 31 March 2005. The contractual relationship between the complainant and the ILO ended at that date. "It emerges from an analysis of [the provisions of Circular No. 630] that short-term contracts should be offered in only specific cases and for a limited duration.
    Having already obtained a fixed-term contract which had been extended, the complainant could not be recruited under a short-term contract, let alone under an external collaboration contract, to continue performing the same work as he had performed under his fixed-term contract, without contravening the spirit of the applicable texts.
    The complainant's last two contracts should therefore be converted into a fixed-term contract."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 630

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; breach; claim; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; consequence; contract; duration of appointment; extension of contract; external collaborator; fixed-term; limits; period; project personnel; provision; same; separation from service; short-term; written rule;



  • Judgment 2696


    104th Session, 2008
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "It was said in Judgment 832 that an acquired right is one that a staff member may expect to survive alteration of the staff rules (see also Judgment 1226). The right may derive from the terms of appointment, the staff rules or from a decision. In Judgment 61 it was said that the amendment of a rule to an official's detriment and without his consent amounts to a breach of an acquired right when the structure of the contract of appointment is disturbed or there is impairment of any fundamental term of appointment in consideration of which the official accepted appointment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 1226

    Keywords:

    acquired right; amendment to the rules; breach; condition; consequence; contract; decision; definition; injury; official; provision; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;



  • Judgment 2672


    104th Session, 2008
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9 and 10

    Extract:

    "A staff association or union is, in essence, a voluntary association of employees and/or others in a relationship pursuant to which they perform services by way of personal exertion, who have agreed together to act collectively [...] to protect and promote their industrial interests. The powers of the association may extend to the protection and promotion of the industrial interests of those who are eligible to belong to the association. Many countries require other formalities including, sometimes, registration under the relevant domestic law. Those laws cannot apply to a staff association or union the membership of which is restricted to international civil servants. However, that is not to say that no formality is necessary for the formation of a staff association or union representing international civil servants.
    For the creation of a staff association or union representing international civil servants, there must, at the very least, be some means of identifying the agreement voluntarily to associate for the purpose of protecting and promoting the industrial interests of members, the terms of that agreement and the means by which it may be varied, both in relation to individual employees and the purposes or objects of the association. [...] [B]ecause it is a voluntary association, there must be an agreement as to the persons by or through whom the association acts, the means by which those persons are selected or elected, the matters in respect of which they have authority to act and the powers that they have in relation to those matters. In the absence of agreement as to each of those matters, the agreement to associate would, in accordance with general principles of law, be void for uncertainty. And to have an agreement covering those matters, there must be rules incorporated in a charter, a statute or some other document to which the members subscribe and by which they agree to be bound."

    Keywords:

    applicable law; collective bargaining; collective rights; effect; freedom of association; freedom of speech; general principle; staff claim; staff representative; staff union agreement; written rule;



  • Judgment 2659


    103rd Session, 2007
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "A hidden sanction is a measure which appears to be adopted in the interests of the Organization and in accordance with the applicable rules, but which in reality is a disciplinary measure imposed as a penalty for a transgression, whether real or imaginary. The true disciplinary nature of an administrative measure that constitutes a hidden sanction is not always apparent. It is therefore necessary to examine the particular circumstances in each case where there is an allegation that an administrative measure is a hidden sanction."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; definition; disciplinary measure; enforcement; hidden disciplinary measure; judicial review; misconduct; organisation's interest; purpose; written rule;



  • Judgment 2657


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post. The Organisation submits that the Tribunal is not competent to hear complaints from external applicants for a post in an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction. "However regrettable a decision declining jurisdiction may be, in that the complainant is liable to feel that he is the victim of a denial of justice, the Tribunal has no option but to confirm the well-established case law according to which it is a court of limited jurisdiction and 'bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence', as stated in Judgment 67, delivered on 26 October 1962. [...]
    It [can be inferred from Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal] that persons who are applicants for a post in an international organisation but who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. It is only in a case where, even in the absence of a contract signed by the parties, the commitments made by the two sides are equivalent to a contract that the Tribunal can decide to retain jurisdiction (see for example Judgment 339). According to Judgment 621, there must be 'an unquestioned and unqualified concordance of will on all terms of the relationship'. That is not the case, however, in the present circumstances: while proposals regarding an appointment were unquestionably made to the complainant, the defendant was not bound by them until it had established that the conditions governing appointments laid down in the regulations were met."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 339, 621

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; exception; external candidate; formal requirements; grounds; handicapped person; iloat statute; intention of parties; interpretation; medical examination; medical fitness; open competition; organisation; post; proposal; provision; refusal; terms of appointment; vested competence; written rule;



  • Judgment 2656


    103rd Session, 2007
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant was accused of having deliberately made false allegations of misconduct against other staff members. At the end of the disciplinary procedure he was dismissed for serious misconduct. "[A]lthough it is not correct to equate deliberate falsehood with reckless indifference to the truth in all circumstances, the nature of the allegations may be such that there is little, if any, room for difference in the consequent sanction. The more serious the allegation, the greater is the need for care. In the present case the allegations were indeed serious, and were of a kind which, in the absence of cogent evidence, should never have been made. That being so, there was no error in this case in equating the appropriate sanction for reckless indifference with that for deliberate falsehood. The complainant showed a callous disregard for the feelings of the persons concerned and a lack of judgement that was wholly incompatible with the standards of conduct required of an international civil servant. In the circumstances, these matters do not warrant a finding that the disciplinary action was disproportionate to the conduct in question."

    Keywords:

    breach; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; freedom of speech; lack of evidence; liability; misconduct; official; proportionality; respect for dignity; same; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment; working relations; written rule;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top