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

Accumulation (331,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Accumulation
Total judgments found: 9

  • Judgment 2938


    109th Session, 2010
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has determined that a staff member on leave on personal grounds is ipso facto no longer performing the duties of his former post and that, although during this leave he continues to be an official, the rights arising from the performance of his duties - remuneration, promotion, guarantee of employment, etc. - are suspended until he is reinstated. In the interests of the service the Agency may therefore use the vacant post (see Judgment 416, under 2). At the end of leave on personal grounds the employer nonetheless has a duty to reinstate the official provided that the two cumulative conditions laid down by [...] Article 40 [of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre] are met: firstly, there must be a vacant post and, secondly, the staff member must be qualified for it (see Judgment 2034, under 11). This duty must be fulfilled promptly and with due regard for the dignity of the staff member concerned and the principle of good faith."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 40 of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 416, 2034

    Keywords:

    accumulation; assignment; compassionate leave; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; consequence; general principle; good faith; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; period; post held by complainant; promotion; qualifications; reinstatement; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; salary; security of tenure; special leave; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; suspension; vacancy;



  • 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;

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant objects to the fact that the Agency has recovered the amount overpaid from the outset, i.e. over a five-year period, whereas in the opposite case, when the Agency makes a mistake to the detriment of an official, it usually benefits from rules of prescription which enable it greatly to reduce the amounts reimbursed.
    "[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, a claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought - even in the absence of any provision in writing to this effect - in reasonable time (see Judgments 53, under 4, and 2565, under 7(c)). However [...] the five-year period concerned by the recovery of the overpayment [...] cannot be regarded in this case as an unreasonable length of time, particularly because the disputed reimbursement arises from concealment on the part of the complainant and because Eurocontrol did not fail to take the necessary steps to recover the sums in question."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 2565

    Keywords:

    accumulation; amount; breach; case law; dependent child; difference; domestic law; family allowance; injury; limits; misrepresentation; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; period; rate; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time bar;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant had to reimburse the full amount overpaid.
    "The evidence on file shows that the complainant deliberately refrained from declaring to Eurocontrol the family allowances drawn by his partner, although he had been duly informed that, in the Agency's view, they should be deducted from those he was receiving. While it was open to the complainant to challenge - if necessary before the Tribunal - any deductions made by the Agency in calculating the payments, he could not choose of his own accord to evade his duty of disclosure. He must therefore be deemed to have been aware of the unlawfulness of the disputed payments, which was indeed sufficiently obvious for it to be concluded that he could not have been unaware of it."

    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; flaw; misrepresentation; payment; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2057


    91st Session, 2001
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Following Judgments 1682 and 1887, adjustments of the 1995-1996 salary scales have been retroactively raised. The organisation paid the difference in salary but did not adjust the salary scales for the following years (those salary scales had been calculated based on the old 1995-1996 salary scales). The Tribunal states that "the [organisation]'s retroactive reconstitution of the adjustments had the paradoxical effect of limiting the application of the [...] staff's improved salary scales to a single year, and of reducing their salary levels [...] after [...] 1996. The result is an impairment of rights: staff are entitled to expect that any adjustments to their pay will be made on the basis of the salary scales which were established lawfully for the period preceding the adjustment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1682, 1887

    Keywords:

    accumulation; adjustment; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; date; effect; increase; international civil servant; purport; right; salary; scale;



  • Judgment 1163


    72nd Session, 1992
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 and 9

    Extract:

    FAO Manual paragraph 308.411 provides for the award of a within-grade salary increment to officials whose service, during a "qualifying period", is satisfactory. The complainant had her annual increment withheld. "Although difficulties were found in the complainant's attitude towards other staff, [her performance reports] do not show such a pattern of conduct as to impair the quality of her work on the assignments she was given. [...] The conclusion is that the conditions in the case law for withholding an increment were not met and that the organization committed a mistake of law in construing and applying 308.411."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: FAO MANUAL PARAGRAPH 308.411
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 247

    Keywords:

    accumulation; case law; complaint allowed; condition; conduct; decision quashed; enforcement; grounds; increment; increment withheld; interpretation; satisfactory service; staff regulations and rules; step; unsatisfactory service; working relations;



  • Judgment 1162


    72nd Session, 1992
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 4

    Extract:

    The complainant objects to two written warnings she got. The wording of Manual paragraph 314.221 is imprecise about what sort of conduct will warrant a warning: "it speaks of 'failure to perform prescribed duties in a satisfactory manner'. To explain how the paragraph is to be applied in practice, however, the paragraph gives in brackets some illustrations of cases of such failure [...] The draughtsman gives in brackets what are no more than examples intended to help in construing the text: they are not cumulative conditions for applying it."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: FAO MANUAL PARAGRAPH 314.221

    Keywords:

    accumulation; condition; conduct; grounds; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; warning;

    Considerations 3, 4 and 5

    Extract:

    The complainant objects to two written warnings she got. The reason the FAO gives for them was her failure to maintain "harmonious working relationships", which is one of the cases mentioned in Manual paragraph 314.221. "Such a reason affords a sound basis in law for the warnings and is in itself sufficient provided that it rests on true allegations of fact. The complainant is therefore mistaken in her view that there must also have been [others] since the only grounds given for the warnings are factually correct and warrant the impugned decisions, the complainant's objections must fail."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: FAO MANUAL PARAGRAPH 314.221

    Keywords:

    accumulation; condition; conduct; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; warning;



  • Judgment 1070


    70th Session, 1991
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7, Summary

    Extract:

    Under Article 2.7(1) of the ILO/ITU Staff Health Insurance Fund Regulations claimants must supply a statement, together with supporting documents, listing any benefits received or to be received from another health scheme in respect of each claim made. The complainant submitted a claim for his ex-wife's medical bills, which had already been reimbursed by another health scheme. "In filing such a statement the complainant had a duty to make sure that the 'supporting documents' were genuine and he could not shirk it by shifting responsibility to his former wife and professing his own ignorance and good faith."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 2.7(1) OF THE ILO/ITU STAFF HEALTH INSURANCE FUND REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    accumulation; dependant; good faith; insurance; insurance benefit; liability; misrepresentation; request by a party;



  • Judgment 770


    59th Session, 1986
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    the complainant was injured in an aircraft accident while on an official mission. he sought compensation from the airline whose plane had caused the accident. the airline agreed to conclude a reasonable settlement. the complainant never disclosed the amount of the payment made to him. under the circumstances, the tribunal holds that it was proper for the organization to deny the complainant further benefits. indeed, paragraph 32 of annex e to the who manual releases the compensation scheme from the obligation to make payments to a staff member who has obtained satisfaction through a third party.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 32 OF ANNEX E TO THE WHO MANUAL

    Keywords:

    accident; accumulation; illness; insurance; insurance benefit; organisation; refusal; service-incurred;



  • Judgment 537


    49th Session, 1982
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    the tribunal interpreted the french and english versions of the relevant rule according to the usual methods. it found that the latter had not been modified when the rules were amended, that the corresponding old rule refers to a section which in no way precludes the accumulation of termination payments and disability benefits. the tribunal took the view that it was the french text of the rule which should be applied, not the english text.

    Keywords:

    accumulation; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; disability benefit; interpretation; language of rule; terminal entitlements;



  • Judgment 180


    27th Session, 1971
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    no terminal entitlements are payable if the person concerned receives benefits under a permanent pension scheme to which the organisation contributes. "...a pension must be defined as "permanent" within the meaning of [the applicable] text if its forfeiture depends solely on the free will of the beneficiary. if ... the complainant ... forfeits his present right to a pension by engaging in gainful employment, he does so of his own free will, a circumstance which does not affect the permanent character of the pension."

    Keywords:

    accumulation; consequence; forfeiture of benefit; pension; pension entitlements; terminal entitlements;


 
Last updated: 12.08.2019 ^ top