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

Staff Regulations and Rules (232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Staff Regulations and Rules
Total judgments found: 494

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 | next >

  • Judgment 4602


    135th Session, 2023
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award her material and moral damages as a victim of harassment and abuse of authority by her direct supervisor.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [T]he WTO’s assertion, to the effect that no provision in the internal regulations, rules or policies directly provides for the possibility of a compensation to the individuals who filed a harassment complaint, is in tension with and indeed ignores its rather clear case law which recognises the right to such compensation when properly supported. In Judgment 4207, at consideration 15, adopted by all seven judges, the Tribunal wrote the following on this issue […].
    These principles have been recognized by the Tribunal’s case law in a number of situations before that Judgment 4207 (see, for example, Judgments 3995, consideration 9, and 3965, considerations 9 and 10) as well as after that Judgment 4207 (see, for example, Judgments 4547, consideration 3, and 4541, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3965, 3995, 4207, 4541, 4547

    Keywords:

    compensation; harassment; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 4435


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who is a former permanent employee of the European Patent Office, challenges the deductions from his remuneration that were made in respect of his absences for strike participation as well as the lawfulness of the general normative decisions on which those deductions were based.

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    In circumstances where the deduction actually made for specified conduct was unlawful under the subsisting Service Regulations, it is appropriate to apply the pre-existing Service Regulations (see Judgment 365, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 365

    Keywords:

    applicable law; deduction; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 4430


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the new rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    In these proceedings the complainants seek relief that, in substance, involves a declaration that CA/D 5/13 and Circular No. 347 are each unlawful and that each should be set aside. As to the Circular, the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to its case law and its Statute, that it has jurisdiction to declare the Circular unlawful and set it aside (see, for example, Judgments 2857, 3522 and 3513). The position is not so clear in relation to CA/D 5/13 which, if it were set aside, would likely have the legal effect of setting aside current (at least as at the time the proceedings in the Tribunal were commenced) provisions of the Service Regulations. While the Tribunal can examine the lawfulness of provisions of a general decision (see, for example, Judgments 92, consideration 3, 2244, consideration 8, and 4274, consideration 4), whether it has jurisdiction to set aside a provision of the Service Regulations is a significant legal question on which the Tribunal’s case law is unclear. It should be resolved in an appropriate case by a plenary panel of the Tribunal constituted by seven judges, which is not presently possible.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 92, 2244, 2857, 3513, 3522, 4274

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; general decision; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The Circular was a normative legal document subordinate to the Service Regulations. As such, it could not modify or limit the Service Regulations in any respect (see Judgment 3534).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3534

    Keywords:

    administrative instruction; staff regulations and rules;



  • 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.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    [A]n international organisation cannot lawfully conclude an employment contract containing a clause that is contrary to its existing staff rules and regulations. The organisation must abide by the provisions it has itself laid down and they therefore take precedence over the clauses of contracts concluded between it and its officials (see, for example, Judgments 1634, under 19, or 2097, under 10).
    It follows that a clause which [...] contravenes the staff rules and regulations is unlawful and therefore cannot apply, even if the contracting parties clearly intended it to do so. Were that not the case, an organisation could evade compliance with its staff regulations on a case-by-case basis, which would seriously undermine the legal framework to which they belong and, in particular, would breach the principle of the equal treatment of officials. [...]
    It is useful to compare this dispute with that which gave rise to Judgment 3483, in which an official’s employment contract made provision for the granting of a benefit which was not mandatory under the Staff Regulations and which the organisation concerned did not intend to pay. Although, in the latter case, the Tribunal found that the disputed contractual clause had to be applied, it did so after expressly noting in consideration 8 of that judgment that the clause had not been unlawfully included in the complainant’s contract, since a provision of the organisation’s rules permitted the granting of the allowance in question to staff members in the position of the official in question. In this case, on the other hand, there was no provision permitting Eurocontrol to grant the complainant an expatriation allowance.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1634, 2097, 3483

    Keywords:

    contract; precedence of rules; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 4013


    126th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his harassment complaint in accordance with the applicable rules.

    Considerations 9 and 11-13

    Extract:

    Contrary to the FAO’s assertions, it did not adhere to the rules applicable to the investigation of a harassment complaint provided in the Circular. It does not follow from the fact that the OIGI based its conclusions on the FAO’s definition of harassment in the Circular, that the investigation was conducted in accordance with the FAO’s rules. It is observed that a “preliminary review” as conducted by the WFP OIGI did not form part of the investigation process in the Circular. As well, in contrast with the OIGI’s process in which a recommendation is included in its report, the provisions in the Circular limit the Investigation Panel’s report to the Director of OHR to its findings of fact. Further, the fact that the Investigation Panel had conducted “preliminary reviews” in its consideration of several harassment complaints without objection; that professional investigators commonly do preliminary evaluations of these types of complaints; and that this approach is recognized in the FAO Guidelines for Internal Administrative Investigations by the Office of the Inspector-General and the WFP Manual does not absolve the FAO of its obligation to deal with these complaints in accordance with the procedure provided in its own rules.

    However, according to the WFP OIGI report, the OIGI and the Director of OHR (FAO) met on two occasions prior to the start of the investigation to discuss “the scope of the preliminary review, as well as to request for information on staff members”. The FAO Inspector-General also attended the last of the two meetings. Thus, it is evident that from the outset, the FAO Director of OHR and the FAO Inspector-General were in agreement with a “preliminary review” of the harassment complaint, a process not contemplated in the Circular. This, coupled with the fact that it does not appear that the FAO and the OIGI engaged in any discussion about the investigation being conducted in accordance with the provisions in the Circular, shows a disregard on the part of the FAO of the obligation to follow its own rules.
    Although the FAO breached its obligation to deal with the harassment complaint in accordance with the applicable rules in the Circular, the complainant has not established that he was prejudiced as a result of the FAO’s action. Moreover, his claim that because of his membership on the Investigation Panel and his role as President of the Association of Professionals he was “single[d] out” and denied the same right and procedure as would be granted to his colleagues is also rejected. His complaint was referred to the WFP because of the conflict of interest problem and for no other reason.
    Returning to the internal appeal, the Appeals Committee majority observed that there was no evidence that “OIGI conducted the investigation in a different manner than the way an investigation is undertaken by the FAO Investigation Panel”, and concluded that the OIGI’s investigation was “undertaken in compliance with the applicable rules specified [in the preceding paragraph – the Circular and the Rules of Procedure of the FAO Investigation Panel]”. As this conclusion constitutes an error of law, the Director-General’s decision endorsing the majority opinion is tainted by the same error of law and will be set aside. The complainant is entitled to moral damages for the FAO’s breach of its duty of care in the amount of 1,000 euros. The complainant did not seek, by way of relief, that the matter be remitted to the FAO to enable further investigation to be conducted in accordance with applicable procedures.

    Keywords:

    duty of care; harassment; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3551


    120th Session, 2015
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal clearly has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, “[t]he Tribunal shall […] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials”. The complainant stated in the complaint form that he filed the complaint in his capacity as a former official. However, according the express terms of the SSA under which he was employed, the complainant did not have the status of a WHO official. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official or former official of WHO and is not covered by WHO’s Staff Rules and Regulations, he has no access to this Tribunal (see Judgments 1034, under 3, and 3049, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1034, 3049

    Keywords:

    competence; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; special service agreement; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3550


    120th Session, 2015
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complainant is not an official of the Organization, the complaint is summarily dismissed.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    It is unnecessary to consider the arguments put forward by the complainant in support of these claims, as the Tribunal clearly has no jurisdiction to hear this case. Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute “[t]he Tribunal shall […] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations of any […] international organization meeting the standards set out in the Annex [to the Statute] which has addressed to the Director-General [of the ILO] a declaration recognizing, in accordance with its Constitution or internal administrative rules, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal”. As the complainant cannot be considered as an official and is not covered by the provisions of the UNESCO’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, she has no access to this Tribunal (see Judgments 2017, under 2(a), and 3049, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2017

    Keywords:

    staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3434


    119th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the EPO had correctly concluded that the complainant was not entitled to the reimbursement he claimed for the school fees of his children.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal does not find that there is any ambiguity or lack of clarity in Article 28 of the Service Regulations. Article 28(1) is intended to protect a serving or former permanent employee or household members of his or her family who suffer injury as a result of criminal or tortious acts to the person or property, by reason of the employee’s office or duties. Under Article 28(2), the EPO is to compensate a serving or former employee who suffers injury “by reason of his office or duties”. Article 28 clearly cannot assist the complainant. In the first place, the payment or reimbursement of school fees is not an injury to which this provision refers. Additionally, no reasons of office or duties attach to the complainant’s present non-active status. Accordingly, the plea based on Article 28 of the Service Regulations is unfounded.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 28 of the Service Regulations

    Keywords:

    breach; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3359


    118th Session, 2014
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, former judges of the ICC, impugn the implied decision of the Assembly of States Parties not to determine to which Pension Scheme they were subjected.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal rejects the complainants’ assertions of standing by reference to the ICC Staff Regulations. It is not disputed that the judges are “officials” of the ICC as stated in the ICC Headquarters Agreement. However, the broad definition of “officials” does not assist the complainants’ position in relation to the Staff Regulations."

    Keywords:

    locus standi; official; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3300


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint filed against the decision not to consider the complainant's disability as resulting from an occupational disease.

    Judgment keywords

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Articles 89(3), 89(4) and 90(1) of the Service Regulations

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; disability benefit; invalidity; medical board; medical opinion; order; pension; procedural flaw; service-incurred; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3289


    116th Session, 2014
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant received a written censure for failing to comply with the procedure of authorizing outside activities and remuneration.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[I]t is observed that there is no limitation period in relation to disciplinary proceedings in the Staff Regulations and Rules. The complainant’s attempt to analogise from the Staff Rule concerning the recovery of an overpayment within one year is without merit. An overpayment is in no way analogous to misconduct. It is true that, if possible, an organisation should promptly take action when the possibility of misconduct on the part of a staff member comes to its attention. However, the complainant’s assertion that an alleged violation of a Staff Rule, if considered serious, “has to be investigated promptly and at the latest one year after the Administration took notice thereof” has no foundation in law or in the Staff Regulations and Rules."

    Keywords:

    breach; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3283


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenged the decision not to promote him earlier to grade A3.

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "It is clear that Section III.C of Circular No. 271 supports rather than detracts from the principle of equal treatment for all persons once they are recruited or promoted to a category A post. The basic requirement is that once recruited to that category, all persons, whether recruited externally with no prior EPO experience, or promoted internally, with prior EPO experience, no past EPO category B or C experience will be taken into account for subsequent promotion within category. All persons who are within any specific A category are placed on an equal seniority footing. Their promotion will be determined by the relevant years of experience within the specific category and their career path, average or rapid, and their performance as reflected in their appraisal reports. It will also depend upon the existence of a vacant post, and in accordance with other criteria that are specified, for example in Article 49(1) of the Service Regulations of the EPO. In the end, promotion is to be “by selection” on a competitive basis and within the discretion of the President on the recommendation of the Promotion Board."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Section III.C of Circular No. 271; Article 49(1) of the Service Regulations

    Keywords:

    equal treatment; promotion; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3282


    116th Session, 2014
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to renew his contract based on an "overall assessment" that his performance was below the acceptable level.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The guarantee of access to justice is a guarantee of access to a judge, which the complainant has in his ability to bring a complaint before the Tribunal. [...] In this case, Article VI.1.02 of the Staff Rules provides that there is no internal remedy for decisions regarding non-renewal of contract and as such, the complainant has direct access to the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article VI.1.02 of the Staff Rules

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; internal appeal; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; right; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3281


    116th Session, 2014
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: Tax refunds due as a result of tax credits.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; domestic law; member state; organisation's duties; payment; reckoning; refund; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax;



  • Judgment 3266


    116th Session, 2014
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to promote him on the ground that the standard used was too demanding (exceptional performance).

    Considerations 13, 14 and 15

    Extract:

    "At no point in the guidelines was there either expressly or impliedly a requirement that the individual who was being considered for promotion had to, in order to secure promotion, have performed their work or discharge their responsibilities in an exceptional manner.
    It is true that twice in the Guidelines [...] the word “exceptionally” appeared. However, its use served the purpose of stating that promotion on merit would not be a usual or ordinary feature of employment within WIPO. That would doubtless be achieved by applying some rigour in the assessment process when applying the specified criteria. It would also be achieved if, as a practical matter (and as contemplated by paragraph 13 of the Guidelines [...]), a person was to be considered for promotion only if recommended by a supervisor and that supervisors exercise restraint in making such recommendations.
    In the present case, the application of a test or standard that the complainant had to have discharged his responsibilities in an exceptional manner before he was promoted informed the decision-making of the Panel and the Appeal Board. Critically, for present purposes, it was also the test or standard used by the Director General in deciding, effectively, that the complainant should not be promoted [...]. It was a test or standard that misstated, and almost certainly overstated (in the sense that was too demanding), the criteria in the Guidelines."

    Keywords:

    criteria; promotion; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3257


    116th Session, 2014
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision to offer him a one-year extension of his fixed-term contract rather than the two-year extensions he had previously received.

    Considerations 18 and 19

    Extract:

    "[T]he Commission breached its own rules regarding the procedure by which the performance appraisal report, which contained the recommendation for the extension of the contract, was to be communicated to the Personnel Division. Paragraph 3.2 of Administrative Directive No. 20 (Rev.2) requires the proposal for the extension of the contract to be submitted to the Personnel Division with a justification of the recommendation that was stated in the proposal. The performance appraisal report was also to be submitted with them.
    There are good reasons for this provision. The proposal containing the recommendation, the justification of the recommendation and the performance appraisal report, submitted together, is intended to provide a complete picture of the performance of a staff member. This in turn is to inform a decision which that Division, the PAP or the Executive Secretary may have been required to make."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Paragraph 3.2 of Administrative Directive No. 20 (Rev.2)

    Keywords:

    contract; enforcement; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; staff regulations and rules;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; discretion; extension of contract; fixed-term; offer; performance report; procedural flaw; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;



  • Judgment 3251


    116th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant's request to be included on the list of eligible candidates for personal promotion was dismissed by the Tribunal.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal is of the opinion that the ILO conducted the 2008 personal promotion exercise in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. The ILO properly applied the new Office Procedure (No. 125, which took effect from 22 October 2009) to the 2008 personal promotion exercise. [...] Considering that the 2008 promotion exercise was launched after Office Procedure No. 125 took effect, the ILO was correct to follow its provisions for the promotion exercise, and not those of Circular No. 334, Series 6, as the complainant suggests. The complainant did not have any acquired right to the 2008 promotion exercise, promotions being considered “an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal” (see Judgments 2668, under 11, 1500, under 4, 1109, under 4, and 1973, under 5)."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Office Procedure No. 125; Circular No. 334, Series 6
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1109, 1500, 1973, 2668

    Keywords:

    acquired right; condition; discretion; interpretation; judicial review; organisation's duties; personal promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 3240


    115th Session, 2013
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the Organization had acted in breach of its own rules on performance appraisal and probationary periods.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "Although the complainant did not take issue with the use of the wrong form for his performance appraisal or with the fact that his immediate supervisor did not conduct the evaluation, this does not absolve the FAO of its obligation to act in compliance with its own Staff Regulations, Staff Rules and Manual provisions implementing those rules (see Judgment 3177, under 18)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3177

    Keywords:

    general principle; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal; written rule;



  • Judgment 3223


    115th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
    The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3214


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he essential purpose of the staff regulations of an international organisation is to promote that organisation’s interests while at the same time safeguarding the rights of its staff."

    Keywords:

    official; organisation's interest; purpose; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The complainant complains about the length of time which elapsed between the filing of his request for the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age and the decision taken on it.
    "Since under Article 54 of the Service Regulations the granting of an extension of an appointment is subject to the condition that it is justified in the interest of the service, the Organisation is right in saying that any decision on the subject can logically be taken only at a date relatively close to that on which the permanent employee concerned will reach normal retirement age. Indeed, if the Organisation were to proceed otherwise, the competent authority would not be in a position to make an informed assessment of the advisability of such an extension in light of that criterion."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 54 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO

    Keywords:

    acceptance; age limit; condition; criteria; date; decision; delay; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; request by a party; retirement; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "[A] provision [...], which grants the executive head of an organisation the power to propose that another organ adopt a decision, authorises that person to refrain from making such a proposal if he or she sees no reason for it (see Judgment 585, under 5)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 585

    Keywords:

    decision; discretion; executive head; proposal; staff regulations and rules;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top