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 2643


    103rd Session, 2007
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant, a British national, entered into a "Civil Solidarity Contract" (PACS) under French law with his same-sex partner and had his partnership registered under the Civil Partnership Act applicable to British citizens. The ITU refused to recognise his partner as his dependent spouse for determination of the benefits pertaining to that status. "The Tribunal has accepted in several recent judgments that same-sex marriages (see Judgment 2590) and unions taking the form of 'registered partnerships' must be recognised where the national legislation applicable to the staff member concerned allows persons who have contracted such unions to be treated as 'spouses' (see Judgments 2549 and 2550). The important difference between the present case and those previously decided lies in the fact that the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules explicitly define the concept of spouses as denoting husband and wife in a large number of provisions, and that, contrary to the situations examined in Judgments 2549 and 2550, the ITU refuses to accept that same-sex unions lawfully contracted under the national legislation of the official concerned may be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. It follows that the defendant was not wrong in asserting that, in the light of the case law and the applicable Regulations and Rules as they currently stand, the Secretary-General was barred from giving the term 'spouse' the broad interpretation requested."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2590

    Keywords:

    applicable law; case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; marital status; provision; purpose; refusal; same; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2636


    103rd Session, 2007
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The terms of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal [...] dictate that various [...] claims for relief are not receivable. The claim that the Tribunal make appropriate orders to enable investigation of the complainant's allegations by the Swiss authorities falls into this category. The complainant's rights are those that derive from the terms of his appointment, the applicable Staff Regulations and those general legal principles recognised by the Tribunal as applicable to all international civil servants. None of these confer any right on the complainant to rely on Swiss law in his claims against WIPO and, consequently, there is no power in the Tribunal to make any order in that regard."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    applicable law; claim; competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; domestic law; general principle; iloat statute; inquiry; official; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2584


    102nd Session, 2007
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Organization contends that the complainant had until 22 September 2003 to submit his notice of appeal. As it was submitted on 2 October, UNESCO considers that it was filed outside the time limit set down in the Statutes of the Appeals Board. The Tribunal notes that a memorandum of 5 September 2003 informed the complainant that the administration would contact him with a view to reaching an amicable settlement. "If an organisation invites settlement discussions or, even, participates in discussions of that kind, its duty of good faith requires that, unless it expressly states otherwise, it is bound to treat those discussions as extending the time for the taking of any further step. That is because settlement discussions must proceed on the basis that no further step will be necessary. Where, as here, there has been no actual decision but the Organization has invited settlement discussions, the duty of good faith requires it to treat the time for taking a further step as running from the termination of those discussions and not from some earlier date identifiable as the date of an implied negative decision. That is because the invitation necessarily implies that, no matter what the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules provide, no final decision has been or will be taken during the course of discussions."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; breach; collective bargaining; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; date; decision; exception; extension of contract; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new time limit; organisation's duties; participation; procedure before the tribunal; proposal; provision; purpose; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time limit; written rule;



  • Judgment 2556


    101st Session, 2006
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The Organisation adopted a new method of calculating replacement days granted to inspectors returning from a Chemical Weapons Destruction Facilities inspection because of the inconsistency between the practice with regard to replacement days and the terms of Administrative Directive AD/PER/12. The complainant contested that new method. Because the earlier practice had become in its view "well established", the Appeals Council recommended that the appeal be upheld, the previous practice reinstated and the replacement days that should have been granted in accordance with that practice reimbursed. The Tribunal considers that "[a]s the practice of granting a replacement day for each Saturday, Sunday or official OPCW holiday falling during an inspection period is inconsistent with the terms of AD/PER/12, that practice cannot be elevated to the status of law so as to entitle the complainant to additional replacement days, as was seemingly thought by the Appeals Council."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: OPCW Administrative Directive AD/PER/12

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; advisory opinion; compensatory measure; difference; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; practice; precedence of rules; provision; public holiday; reckoning; recommendation; refund; right; written rule;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "It is well settled that the principle of equality requires the equal application of the relevant law, not its equal misapplication."

    Keywords:

    condition; definition; enforcement; equal treatment; general principle; written rule;



  • Judgment 2553


    101st Session, 2006
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 5 and 6

    Extract:

    Harassment is described in IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922 as follows:
    "Harassment is any conduct or comment made by a staff member or group of staff members on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation. It can take many different forms, including, for example: threatening comments, whether oral or written, or threatening physical behaviour; intimidation, blackmail or coercion; making deliberate insults related to a person's personal or professional competence; humiliating, degrading or making offensive or abusive personal remarks to someone; undermining or isolating people; or making it impossible for staff to do their job by, for example, withholding information."
    "This is a very broad definition, no doubt designedly so. It requires reasonable interpretation and application to the circumstances of each particular case. It contains both subjective and objective elements: did the alleged victim actually feel humiliated, offended or intimidated by the impugned conduct, and was such conduct, viewed objectively, of a nature reasonably to humiliate, offend or intimidate? Where the impugned conduct consists of words, although truth will not always constitute a complete defence, an inquiry as to whether such words may or may not reasonably be true is obviously relevant. Likewise, an inquiry as to whether the speaker's words can reasonably be seen as a reference to the performance of duties and are not merely gratuitous comments will be germane. Personal characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity as well as the reasonableness of the sensitivities of the alleged victim, must also be weighed in considering both questions. Similarly, any previous history of relations between the alleged victim and the alleged offender may be relevant and, while a single injurious action may by itself be enough to constitute harassment, an otherwise apparently inoffensive comment may, with repetition, become a legitimate source of grievance.
    In the final analysis, the question as to whether any particular act or series of acts amounts to harassment is one of fact to be answered only after careful consideration of the above factors and an examination of all the surrounding circumstances."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922

    Keywords:

    breach; conduct; continuing breach; criteria; definition; difference; harassment; information note; interpretation; judicial review; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; purpose; qualifications; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; working relations; written rule;



  • Judgment 2480


    100th Session, 2006
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 2 and 4

    Extract:

    The complainant takes issue with an ILO circular which concerned matrimonial property rights. It informed foreign nationals, like himself, who were married outside Switzerland with no marriage contract, that Switzerland was treating such persons as subject to the Swiss regime of joint ownership of property acquired after marriage (participation aux acquêts). He holds that by accepting such "instructions" from the Swiss Government, the Organization caused him undue financial hardship and "deep moral suffering". The Tribunal considers that the circular was "simply the transmission by the ILO to its staff members resident in Geneva of information received from the local 'Chambre des notaires'. [...] The publication by an international organisation for its staff members of purely objective information of this sort relating to local private law is manifestly not a matter falling within the Tribunal's field of competence."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 451, Series 6

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; domestic law; headquarters official; information note; marital status; material injury; moral injury; nationality; official; organisation; publication; written rule;



  • Judgment 2457


    99th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant argues that the competition procedure was flawed owing to the fact that one of the members of the Selection Board was not present at the pre-selection meeting. The Organisation does not deny this fact but considers that this procedural flaw could not invalidate the pre-selection since the Selection Board, which decided unanimously, would not have reached a different conclusion even if all Board members had been present.
    Basing itself on the applicable rules the Tribunal considers that "the absence of one member of the Board did constitute a flaw, despite the fact that the Board's opinion was unanimous. Since the flawed composition of the Selection Board could not be corrected through subsequent consultation of the absent member, the competition procedure, which is tainted with a formal flaw, must be set aside where the complainant is concerned [...]. The complainant must therefore be restored to the position in which he was prior to the [pre-selection] meeting [...], and his application must be reviewed in accordance with the applicable rules."

    Keywords:

    candidate; claim; compensation; competition; complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; consultation; decision; decision quashed; difference; enforcement; flaw; formal flaw; identical claims; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; provision; selection board; written rule;



  • Judgment 2456


    99th Session, 2005
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9 and 11

    Extract:

    The complainant joined the Organisation in January 1998 under a fixed-term appointment. His contract, which was extended in 2003, was due to expire on 14 June 2004; it was not renewed due to the implementation of the seven-year tenure rule. He has produced before the Tribunal a document signed by the Director-General containing data about his performance, in which his date of entry on duty was incorrectly shown as 24 May 1997. He contends that the Director-General relied on that data in deciding not to renew his contract. "Since in the implementation of its policy the Organisation was said to be applying a 'first in, first out' rule, an error of over seven months in the calculation of any employee's length of service may be of critical importance. That is especially the case where such apparent error has the effect of indicating wrongly that the employee would at the time of his separation from the Organisation have served more than seven years. The Tribunal considers the alleged errors of fact to be material. [...] The non-renewal decision must be set aside and the Organisation shall be ordered to pay to the complainant the full balance of salary and benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had received a one-year extension of his contract to 14 June 2005. The complainant must account for any earnings from other employment during that period."

    Keywords:

    allowance; appointment; complaint allowed; consequence; contract; date; decision; decision quashed; duration of appointment; enforcement; extension of contract; fixed-term; general principle; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; period; reckoning; right; salary; staff member's duties; written rule;



  • Judgment 2411


    98th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "It is not acceptable that the Administration has attempted to upgrade its practice to the status of law when the law itself says nothing of the sort; nor can the practice of an organisation be invoked to deny its officials their written rights."

    Keywords:

    applicable law; complaint allowed; duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules; organisation's duties; practice; right; written rule;



  • Judgment 2358


    97th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal asserts categorically that, as a matter of law, the ambiguities must be resolved in the manner most favourable to staff members. That is simply an application of the general rule requiring that any ambiguous text should be construed against the interest of the person responsible for drafting it and in favour of the person upon whom it is imposed. (For a recent application of the rule, see Judgment 2290.)"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2290

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; enforcement; general principle; interpretation; organisation's interest; staff member's interest; written rule;



  • Judgment 2357


    97th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "Where a person seeks to bring himself or herself within an exception to a general rule - here, the rule that an education allowance is not payable to persons serving in their own country - it is for that person to establish that he or she falls within the exception."

    Keywords:

    allowance; burden of proof; condition; duty station; education expenses; exception; nationality; official; written rule;



  • Judgment 2354


    97th Session, 2004
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 and 7

    Extract:

    The complainant's post as a translator was abolished and his appointment was terminated. "According to the [applicable] provisions, the Secretary General was obliged to consult the Staff Committee before terminating [an] appointment. The Tribunal considers that this obligation to consult - which must not be seen as just an unnecessary formality, even though the Secretary General is not bound by the opinion of the advisory body - is not fulfilled unless the advisory body is in such a position that it can give an opinion independently and in full knowledge of the facts, which implies that it must be provided with all the information it needs, and especially the real reasons for the proposed measure, so that it can express an objective opinion. [...] While it emerges from the submissions that the general reasons for reducing the number of translators had been brought to the attention of the Staff Committee, it has not been established that the latter had been given the specific reasons for suppressing the complainant's post, rather than that of another official of the same grade and in the same Directorate, prior to delivering its opinion. [...] In the Tribunal's view, this lack of precise information concerning the specific reason for the decision to suppress the complainant's post in particular and to terminate his appointment invalidated the consultation provided for in [the applicable provisions], which is tantamount to saying that no consultation took place."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; binding character; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; consequence; decision; due process; duty to inform; executive head; flaw; grade; grounds; independence; lack of evidence; official; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; provision; same; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; written rule;



  • Judgment 2352


    97th Session, 2004
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4 and 5

    Extract:

    The complainant's post was abolished and his appointment terminated. "It is clear from the [applicable] provisions that [...] the Staff Committee had to be consulted before the decision was taken to terminate the complainant's appointment. The purpose of consulting an advisory body, prior to terminating an official's appointment, is to allow that body to ensure that all the conditions for taking such a step are met, with a view to submitting a recommendation to the executive head. The Tribunal takes the view that it is established, by the evidence [...], that the Staff Committee was indeed consulted regarding the suppression of the [complainant's] post [...]. However, it considers that the Committee was not formally consulted with regard to the intention to terminate the complainant's appointment. [...] As the impugned decision was taken in breach of the applicable rules, it must be held unlawful and the Tribunal need not rule on the complainant's other pleas."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; consequence; decision; due process; executive head; flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; provision; purpose; recommendation; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; written rule;



  • Judgment 2336


    97th Session, 2004
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[T]he publication of the internal invitation for candidature presuppose[s] that the procedure for selecting candidates [...] be conducted in compliance with the general principles recalled in the case law and with rules established prior to the invitation for candidature and known to the candidates, such rules being designed to guarantee objectivity and transparency in order to ensure that all candidates stand the same chances."

    Keywords:

    case law; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty to inform; equal treatment; general principle; internal candidate; internal competition; vacancy notice; written rule;



  • Judgment 2315


    96th Session, 2004
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. "A change in the nature of the discretion to be exercised in determining whether to grant future rights by the extension or renewal of a contract cannot be said to effect a change in an existing legal interest, much less in an existing legal right or existing legal status. Accordingly, the seven year policy embodied in [the] directive [...] is not retroactive even if the seven year period is computed from a time prior to the proclamation of that policy."

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; appointment; career; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; contract; date; decision; discretion; exception; extension of contract; general principle; limits; non-local status; official; organisation; period; professional category; publication; reckoning; right; staff member's interest; status of complainant; terms of appointment; written rule;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. In accordance with this directive, the complainant's contract was not renewed. "Much of the complainant's argument is directed to the proposition that the Commission cannot secure services of the standard specified in [Staff] Regulation 4.2 if it cannot retain those services beyond seven years, particularly as it has to compete for staff with other international organisations. That proposition is not self-evidently correct. Nor is it established by pointing, as the complainant does in his submissions, to international organisations which have a similar policy and which, according to the complainant, have or may have had difficulties in recruiting and retaining suitable staff. Moreover, [...] exceptions [are allowed] in the case of a need to retain 'essential expertise or memory in the Secretariat' ensures that, to that extent, its staffing needs can be satisfied."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: CTBTO PrepCom's Staff Regulation 4.2

    Keywords:

    appointment; career; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; enforcement; exception; general principle; lack of evidence; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; professional category; qualifications; safeguard; same; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. In accordance with this directive, the complainant's contract was not renewed. "Although the embodiment of the seven year policy in [the] directive may properly be viewed as the prescribing of a term or condition upon which fixed-term contracts may be granted, it does not itself operate as the imposition of that term or condition. To be effective, a term or condition of the kind now in question must be incorporated in the contract, even if only by reference: a reference to the Staff Regulations and Rules is not sufficient because they do not incorporate the [...] directive in question. By implementing the seven year policy in the way that he purported to do in the present case, the Executive Secretary was attempting to enforce a term or condition that was not incorporated in the contract between the complainant and the Preparatory Commission."

    Keywords:

    appointment; career; complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; contract; effect; enforcement; exception; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; professional category; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;



  • Judgment 2313


    96th Session, 2004
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "It is the duty of international organisations to ensure that they abide by the principle of equality and, particularly, that they comply with its requirement that there be equal pay for work of equal value. And if their rules and procedures do not ensure adherence to that principle and its requirement of equal remuneration, it is their duty to initiate procedures that do, whether by way of general rule or some specific procedure for the particular case."

    Keywords:

    consequence; equal treatment; general principle; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; safeguard; salary; same; written rule;



  • Judgment 2292


    96th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "[T]he fact that in connection with pension rights different rules apply according to the place of residence of retired staff members constitutes neither a breach of property rights nor a violation of the principle of equality, provided that the staff concerned are not deprived of any of the rights they enjoy under the statutory and regulatory provisions which apply to them, and that they have freely exercised their right of option."

    Keywords:

    equal treatment; official; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; provision; residence; written rule;



  • Judgment 2290


    96th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "In case of doubt [on the meaning which may reasonably be given to the clause of a contract], it is accepted that, in accordance with the principle of good faith, ambiguous clauses should be interpreted to the detriment of the party which drafted the contract."

    Keywords:

    benefit of doubt; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; good faith; interpretation; law of contract; provision; written rule;



  • Judgment 2272


    96th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    A rule, "approved by the Administrative Council, [cannot] be called into question by the President. It is true that, when deciding to promote or not to promote a permanent employee, the President enjoys discretionary authority, subject to the Tribunal¿s limited power of review. Within the bounds of this limited power of review, however, the Tribunal considers whether decisions referred to it are not flawed by abuse of authority or error of law. In the present case, the complainant argues rightly that by refusing to apply to his case a rule which had been approved by the Administrative Council, despite the fact that he met the necessary requirements, the President committed an error of law and abused his authority."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; discretion; enforcement; executive body; executive head; interpretation; judicial review; limits; misuse of authority; promotion; refusal; repeal; written rule;



  • Judgment 2232


    95th Session, 2003
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director- General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability, arguing that the complainant was not a staff member. "The defendant [...] considers that since the particular case of the Director-General of the Organisation was not expressly provided for in the texts on which the Tribunal's jurisdiction is based, an express provision recognising its jurisdiction would have been necessary. It points out that [another international organisation] (UNESCO), having realised that it had no statutory provision nor any contractual stipulation attributing jurisdiction in the event of a dispute involving its Director-General, decided in 1999 to include such a clause in the contract it signed with him. whilst the Tribunal does not deny that UNESCO thereby clarified difficulties which were liable to arise, it does not view that as authority for the reverse proposition that contracts containing no such clause, entered into by other organisations with their respective chief administrative officers, must be deemed to exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; contract; decision; exception; executive head; grounds; interpretation; no provision; organisation; provision; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment; written rule;

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


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top