L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies
ILO-fr-strap
Plan du site | Contact English
> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par mots-clés du thésaurus > interpretation des règles

Judgment No. 3434

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

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.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

education expenses; complaint dismissed

Consideration 5

Extract:

[I]t is observed that the submissions that are contained in the brief supporting the complaint refer in part to explanations and submissions which were provided in other documents. On previous occasions, the Tribunal drew attention to Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, which states that arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself, supplemented in the rejoinder if necessary. It was stated in Judgment 2264, under 3(e), for example, that those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, as that would be contrary to the Rules and would render it difficult for the other party to clearly understand the complainant’s pleas. Such references are acceptable only as illustrations. This is particularly so where, as in the present case, the annexes are bulky but are not helpfully demarcated to facilitate identification.

Reference(s)

ILOAT reference: Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2264

Keywords

complaint; omission to rule on a plea; receivability of the complaint; judicial review

Consideration 22

Extract:

The Tribunal has consistently stated that the staff regulations and staff rules of an international organisation are to be interpreted without resort to international instruments. Such instruments bind State Parties.

Keywords

international instrument; interpretation

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

staff regulations and rules; breach

Consideration 6

Extract:

The applicable principles for the interpretation of the EPO’s provisions for the reimbursement of school fees have been set out, for example, in Judgment 3310, under 7, as follows:
“The primary rule is that words in a statutory text are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning and any ambiguity in a provision should be construed in favour of staff and not of the Organisation (see Judgment 2276, consideration 4). The construction of any instrument of this character entails the Tribunal endeavouring to ascertain the objectives sought to be achieved by the instrument having regard to the language used.”

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2276, 3310

Keywords

contra proferentem; interpretation of rules



 
Dernière mise à jour: 27.10.2021 ^ haut