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

Rule of another organisation (230, 231,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Rule of another organisation
Total judgments found: 37

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 3831


    124th Session, 2017
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegations of harassment.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [W]hether the Appendix G procedures are comparable to those of other international organisations is irrelevant.

    Keywords:

    rule of another organisation;



  • Judgment 2639


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

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "Both under the UN Staff Rules and the WTO Staff Rules, the Organization recognises only one nationality for each staff member; a staff member's nationality is determined at the time of appointment and a staff member's home is deemed to be in the country of which the staff member is a national, unless there are compelling reasons to make an exception."

    Keywords:

    appointment; date; exception; grounds; home; international civil servant; nationality; place of origin; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2638


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

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The main justification for granting benefits such as home leave or an education grant to some staff members is not that the beneficiaries have a particular nationality, but that their duty station is not in their recognised home country. Far from being discriminatory, such practices, which moreover exist in most international organisations, are designed to restore a degree of equality between officials serving in a foreign country and those who are working in a country where they normally have their home. The two categories cannot be regarded as being in identical situations. Consequently, according to firm precedent, the principle of equality must not lead to their being treated in an identical manner when a difference in treatment is appropriate and adapted (see Judgment 2313 [...])."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2313

    Keywords:

    allowance; breach; difference; duty station; education expenses; equal treatment; general principle; home; home leave; international civil servant; nationality; organisation's duties; place of origin; practice; purpose; rule of another organisation; same;



  • Judgment 2637


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

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "[I]t is convenient to note the different but related purposes of home leave and education grant. The purpose of home leave is not to confer a financial benefit or to make a monetary concession (see Judgment 937). Rather, as pointed out in Judgment 2389, it is 'to enable staff members who, owing to their work, spend a number of years away from the country with which they have the closest personal or material ties to return there in order to maintain those connections'. Similarly, the purpose of the education grant is made explicit by UN Staff Regulation 3.2(c), namely, to provide for a staff member 'serving in a country whose language is different from his or her own and who is obliged to pay tuition for the teaching of the mother tongue to a dependent child attending a local school in which the instruction is given in a language other than his or her own'."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 937, 2389

    Keywords:

    allowance; dependent child; difference; duty station; education expenses; home leave; international civil servant; nationality; organisation's interest; payment; period; place of origin; purpose; rule of another organisation; same;



  • Judgment 2420


    98th Session, 2005
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has on numerous occasions ruled on the issue of whether an international organisation is bound to comply with general provisions that would infringe the rights of its staff members. The fact that an international organisation belongs to the common system does not enable it to decline or limit its own responsibility towards the members of its staff or lessen the degree of judicial protection it owes them. Any organisation that introduces elements of the common system into its own rules has a duty to ensure that the texts it thereby imports are lawful (on this issue, see Judgment 1265, which refers to Judgments 382 and 825; for more recent examples concerning the duties of the FAO, see Judgments 1713 and 2303). Whilst the Tribunal fully appreciates the difficulties - emphasised by the defendant - that international organisations are liable to face in departing from the salary scales adopted on the basis of ICSC recommendations, it is nevertheless bound to ensure that international law is observed in the relations between the said organisations and their staff, regardless of the external authority from which the decisions taken emanate. Indeed, the case of an organisation having to revise salary scales resulting from recommendations or decisions affecting the common system, whether or not pursuant to a ruling by the competent tribunal, is not without precedent."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 825, 1265, 1713, 2303

    Keywords:

    adjustment; case law; criteria; decision-maker; icsc decision; liability; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;



  • Judgment 2292


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

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    Even if "the Member States of the [Organisation] are all signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Organisation [...] as such is not a member of the Council of Europe and is not bound by the Convention in the same way as signatory states. Nevertheless, the general principles enshrined in the Convention, particularly the principles of non-discrimination and the protection of property rights, are part of human rights, which, [...] in compliance with the Tribunal's case law, apply to relations with staff."

    Keywords:

    applicable law; case law; equal treatment; general principle; international civil service principles; international instrument; member state; organisation's duties; provision; right; rule of another organisation; universal declaration of human rights; working relations;



  • Judgment 1996


    89th Session, 2000
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 & 7

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 1821 the Tribunal recalled that where a methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure (see Judgment 1682 [...]). [...] However, departure from the index given as an orientation in the Staff Regulations requires more than just a statement of proper reasons. In order to protect staff against arbitrariness, the criteria relied on to deviate from the orientation suggested by the external index must be objective, adequate and known to the staff (see Judgment 1912, under 15)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1682, 1821, 1912

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; breach; burden of proof; complaint allowed; criteria; duty to substantiate decision; interpretation; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1992


    89th Session, 2000
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The complainants argue that the organization did not follow the same practice in implementing its new salary scale as that followed by other United Nations agencies in New Delhi [...] Apart from the fact that the complainants have not produced persuasive evidence as to the practice of other agencies (such evidence as there is, in fact, appears to be to the contrary) the practice of other agencies is irrelevant. If the organization has acted properly and in accordance with the applicable Staff Rules, the fact that others who may be governed by different rules may have acted differently, is beside the point."

    Keywords:

    practice; rule of another organisation; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1912


    88th Session, 2000
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The methodologies adopted by international organisations for setting and adjusting the remuneration of the staff, in principle, must enable results to be obtained that are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood [...] when the applicable method uses an external index, [...] not with a view to requiring the competent body to conform automatically to the index, but only as a simple orientation', which in itself is not a breach of any rights, the staff can only be protected against arbitrariness if the criteria used in deviating from the suggested orientation of the external index are objective, adequate and known to the staff."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821

    Keywords:

    adjustment; bias; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; criteria; duty to inform; organisation's duties; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;



  • Judgment 1889


    87th Session, 1999
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 and 7

    Extract:

    The complainant was assigned to Chad in 1991 and contracted Hepatitis B in 1993. "The Appeals Committee considers that the medical service did not completely fulfil its role and did not offer the staff member concerned the advice that it could have supplied. The Appeals Committee even refers to responsibility being equally shared'. In practice, there could be no grave fault of the medical service incurring the responsibility of the organization unless the protective measures recommended by a competent authority had been disregarded. In the material case, the organization demonstrates that in 1991 [...] the World Health Organization's guidelines did not specifically recommend vaccination against Hepatitis B for persons posted to African countries affected by an endemic illness of this type."

    Keywords:

    breach; illness; liability; medical consultant; negligence; no provision; organisation; organisation's duties; rule of another organisation; serious misconduct; service-incurred;



  • Judgment 1821


    86th Session, 1999
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The principles governing the limits on the discretion of international organisations to set adjustments in staff pay [...] may be concisely stated as follows: (a) An international organisation is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all other principles of international civil service law [...]. (b) The chosen methodology must ensure that the results are 'stable, foreseeable and clearly understood' [...]. (c) Where the methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure [...]. (d) While the necessity of saving money may be one valid factor to be considered in adjusting salaries provided the method adopted is objective, stable and foreseeable [...], the mere desire to save money at the staff's expense is not by itself a valid reason for departing from an established standard of reference [...]." (See cited case law.)

    Keywords:

    adjustment; budgetary reasons; case law; complaint allowed; condition; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; criteria; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; executive body; good faith; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;



  • Judgment 1682


    84th Session, 1998
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "True, Article R 4 1.01 [of the EMBL Staff Regulations] does not commit [the EMBL] to granting [its staff] all the adjustments that apply to the staff of the coordinated organizations. Yet the provision does not leave it quite free to apply only in part, let alone to cast aside altogether, the decisions of those organisations. [...] Of course it may switch to another system or standard of reference [...] but as long as [...] the system [...] holds good [...] the staff are entitled to the safeguards that R 4 1.01 bestows: objective arbitrament and sure figures."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R 4 1.01 OF EMBL STAFF REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    adjustment; amendment to the rules; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; coordinated organisations; decision quashed; organisation's duties; rule of another organisation; safeguard; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1641


    83rd Session, 1997
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The case concerns the "general methodology" which provides the procedure for the salary surveys done under the auspices of the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) and which permits adjustments in pay. The ICSC and the United Nations were granted leave to intervene, but the complainants object to the intervention by the UN. "Under Article 13, paragraph 3, of the Rules of the Tribunal the President may allow submissions from a third party." The Tribunal holds that it was appropriate to allow the United Nations to comment, "the aim being to make for uniform application of the rules to the organisations of the United Nations 'common system'."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 13(3) OF THE TRIBUNAL'S RULES

    Keywords:

    adjustment; coordinated organisations; enforcement; icsc decision; iloat statute; inquiry; organisation; president of tribunal; rule of another organisation; salary; scale; submissions;



  • Judgment 1603


    82nd Session, 1997
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The International Civil Service Commission "may make recommendations for aligning conditions of service in the common system and may decide on the methods of determining them. Yet the staff may still challenge any action by that body, independent though it be of the organisation that employs them. [...] So the complainants may challenge the lawfulness of the Commission's method [...] even though the FAO has done no more than fall in line."

    Keywords:

    complaint; coordinated organisations; general decision; icsc decision; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; rule of another organisation; salary; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 1520


    81st Session, 1996
    World Tourism Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The general decisions which the Assembly and Executive Council of the WTO took and which came into effect as announced in the circular affect the complainants' right to legal status in line with the common system, particularly as to the amounts of end-of-service entitlements, notice of dismissal and the general rules on retirement pensions. None of those provisions - some of which have indeed been dropped - directly infringes any of the rights that the complainants are asserting. They may, if they so wish, properly challenge any individual decision that applies to the provisions. Insofar as they are challenging the circular their complaints are therefore irreceivable."

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; cause of action; coordinated organisations; general decision; individual decision; receivability of the complaint; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 1509


    81st Session, 1996
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The fact that UNIDO was administering the [joint UN and UNIDO service in which the complainant was working] made neither the complainant one of its officials nor the organization a party to the contract of employment. According to his letters of appointment the complainant was subject to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules of the United Nations, not of UNIDO. And even if in administering the service UNIDO did apply its own Staff Regulations to the complainant he did not on that account become a member of its staff. So any complaint by him that UNDO failed to apply, or misapplied, its Staff Regulations to him is not within the Tribunal's competence."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11 ILOAT STATUTE

    Keywords:

    applicable law; competence of tribunal; contract; iloat statute; international civil servant; locus standi; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "Article II(5) empowers the Tribunal to hear a complaint which an official of an international organisation that has duly recognised its jurisdiction has filed and which alleges non-observance of either the terms of the official's appointment or the Staff Regulations. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 231 [...], those are 'two conditions which in practice coincide'. The reference to 'Staff Regulations' means those of the organisation of which a complainant is or was an official and does not include the Staff Regulations of any other."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II(5) OF THE ILOAT STATUTE
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 231

    Keywords:

    applicable law; breach; case law; competence of tribunal; contract; declaration of recognition; iloat statute; international civil servant; locus standi; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 1446


    79th Session, 1995
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    It is "worth recalling [...] that the increases at issue [...] offend against the norms of the 'common system', which are binding on any organisation that belongs: see Judgments 1239, [...] under 7 and 8, and 1265, [...] under 36."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1239, 1265

    Keywords:

    applicable law; binding character; case law; coordinated organisations; rule of another organisation;



  • Judgment 1419


    78th Session, 1995
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 28

    Extract:

    "Contrary to what its constant use of the term 'pay policy' seeks to suggest, [the ESO's] taking the procedure of the co-ordinated organisations as its point of reference plainly incorporated into its internal rules legal criteria that it would otherwise have had to put in binding provisions of the staff rules."

    Keywords:

    binding character; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; effect; rule of another organisation; salary;

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    Since 1982 the ESO has aligned its salary policy with that of the European co-ordinated organisations. "The ESO might no doubt change the reference mark or the arrangements provided that it abided by the procedures and forms prescribed for the purpose in its own rules and regulations. But so long as the present arrangements hold good, its staff are entitled to the safeguards of objectivity and stability they afford. The ESO may not remove such safeguards because of prevailing circumstances or a mere wish to do so."

    Keywords:

    acquired right; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; organisation's duties; patere legem; rule of another organisation; security of tenure; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1369


    77th Session, 1994
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 31

    Extract:

    "The duty to explain a decision differs in content when an organisation takes over as a whole the decisions on pay that another one - in this instance the [European] Communities - has already adopted. [...] So on falling into line with the Communities Eurocontrol had no further obligation to give an explanation especially since it was the staff themselves who had been demanding alignment."

    Keywords:

    duty to substantiate decision; law of european communities; limits; organisation's interest; rule of another organisation; salary; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 1317


    76th Session, 1994
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 22 and 23

    Extract:

    The ITU, relying on material provisions in the Staff Regulations and Rules, argues that the complainant's fixed-term appointment automatically expired when his contract ran out and that it had no need to take a decision on non-renewal. The Tribunal, having made clear that those provisions "have counterparts in the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules of several other international organisations", holds that its ruling on this case "must be in line with what proves to be an important feature of the common law of international organisations, or at least of those that define contracts by category in determining relations with their employees. [...] Consistent precedent has it that [...] a fixed-term contract", even a temporary one, "is to be treated as a distinct and challengeable administrative decision."

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; coordinated organisations; decision; decision quashed; fixed-term; law of contract; non-renewal of contract; notice; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 14.11.2019 ^ top