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

Acquired right (182,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Acquired right
Total judgments found: 107

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

  • Judgment 4398


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her claim for a second payment of the lump sum paid in the event of death or permanent invalidity under Article 84(1)b) of the Service Regulations.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Tribunal [...] finds that the 2008 amendment to Article 84(1)b) [of the Service Regulations] did not breach the principle of acquired rights as the complainant contends. The Tribunal’s case law states that the amendment of a rule to an official’s detriment and without her or his consent amounts to breach of an acquired right when the structure of the contract of appointment is disturbed or there is impairment of any fundamental term of appointment in consideration of which the official accepted appointment (see, for example, Judgment 4195, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal has established that the consideration whether an altered term of appointment is fundamental depends upon: (1) the nature of the term that is altered; (2) the reason for the change; and (3) the consequences of allowing or disallowing an acquired right (see, for example, Judgment 3375, consideration 12). These are compendious requirements which must all be met for the plea of breach of acquired rights to succeed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3375, 4195

    Keywords:

    acquired right;



  • Judgment 4381


    131st Session, 2021
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the changes made with respect to her salary.

    Consideration 28

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal’s case law does not support an approach to determining whether an acquired right has been breached which entails the examination of an altered “package” of salary and benefits to justify a conclusion that the alteration of any given element of the package involved a violation or breach of an acquired right. The logical consequences of this approach would be that even though such an alteration to a given element may be minimal or entirely justified or both, because other changes are made to other elements of the “package” the minimal or justified alteration can be characterised as a breach of an acquired right. There is no principled basis for taking this approach though the Tribunal cannot discount the possibility that situations may arise where the effect of the alteration of a limited number of related benefits might be viewed as relevant to the characterisation of one alteration as being a breach of an acquired right.

    Keywords:

    acquired right; salary;

    Consideration 31

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant bears the burden of establishing her case (see, for example, Judgments 4094, consideration 17, and 3912, consideration 13). In many respects her pleas are vague and unclear. For example, the basis on which she had, historically, been receiving the dependency rate of pay is not articulated with any precision. It appears from observations in her brief that it was not because she had a dependent spouse but rather dependent children. But she does not establish her calculations of potential future loss as a result of the abolition of the dependency rate are well founded, because, having regard to the age and circumstances of her children, she would have been entitled to the dependency rate for the entire period the transitional arrangements would operate. It would only be in the context of clearly articulated argument by reference to proven or uncontroversial facts, the Tribunal might reach a level of satisfaction that indeed acquired rights have been breached. It would be a large step for the Tribunal to do so and could only be done on a firm foundation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3912, 4094

    Keywords:

    acquired right; burden of proof;

    Considerations 13-15

    Extract:

    The concept of breach of acquired rights has its genesis in the first decision given on 15 January 1929 of this Tribunal then called the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations. In re di Palma Castiglione v. International Labour Office, the Tribunal held: “The Administration is at liberty to establish for its staff such regulations as it may see fit, provided that it does not in any way infringe the acquired rights of any staff member.” Over the decades since, the basis for recognising and protecting acquired rights has evolved and, in particular, principles developed for demarking what are and are not such rights [...].
    The applicable legal principles were recently summarised by the Tribunal in Judgment 4195, consideration 7:
    “According to the case law, ‘[i]n Judgment 61 [...] the Tribunal held that the amendment of a rule to an official’s detriment and without his consent amounts to breach of an acquired right when the structure of the contract of appointment is disturbed or there is impairment of any fundamental term of appointment in consideration of which the official accepted appointment’ (see Judgment 832, under 13). Judgment 832, under 14 (cited in part, below), poses a three-part test for determining whether the altered term is fundamental and essential. The test is as follows:
    (1) What is the nature of the altered term? ‘It may be in the contract or in the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules or in a decision, and whereas the contract or a decision may give rise to acquired rights the regulations and rules do not necessarily do so.’
    (2) What is the reason for the change? ‘It is material that the terms of appointment may often have to be adapted to circumstances, and there will ordinarily be no acquired right when a rule or a clause depends on variables such as the cost-of-living index or the value of the currency. Nor can the finances of the body that applies the terms of appointment be discounted.’
    (3) What is the consequence of allowing or disallowing an acquired right and the effect it will have on staff pay and benefits, and how do those who plead an acquired right fare as against others?”
    Also, as the Tribunal recently discussed in Judgment 4028, consideration 13, international civil servants are not entitled to have all the conditions of employment or retirement laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career and retirement. Most of those conditions can be altered though, depending on the nature and importance of the provision in question, staff may have an acquired right to its continued application.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4028, 4195

    Keywords:

    acquired right;

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law recognises that the alteration of a benefit can operate to the detriment of staff and this, of itself, does not constitute the breach of an acquired right. A further element was needed, as discussed in the opening paragraph of the quotation in consideration 10: the complainant should have demonstrated that the structure of the employment contract was disturbed and that the modifications impaired a fundamental term of appointment in consideration of which he accepted employment. The complainant has not demonstrated, to the Tribunal’s satisfaction, that this further element exists in the present case in relation to the changes impugned in these proceedings.

    Keywords:

    acquired right;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    acquired right; complaint dismissed; icsc decision; salary;



  • Judgment 4380


    131st Session, 2021
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the changes made with respect to his salary.

    Considerations 9-11

    Extract:

    The concept of breach of acquired rights has its genesis in the first decision given on 15 January 1929 of this Tribunal then called the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations. In re di Palma Castiglione v. International Labour Office, the Tribunal held: “The Administration is at liberty to establish for its staff such regulations as it may see fit, provided that it does not in any way infringe the acquired rights of any staff member.” Over the decades since, the basis for recognising and protecting acquired rights has evolved and, in particular, principles developed for demarking what are and are not such rights [...].
    The applicable legal principles were recently summarised by the Tribunal in Judgment 4195, consideration 7:
    “According to the case law, ‘[i]n Judgment 61 [...] the Tribunal held that the amendment of a rule to an official’s detriment and without his consent amounts to breach of an acquired right when the structure of the contract of appointment is disturbed or there is impairment of any fundamental term of appointment in consideration of which the official accepted appointment’ (see Judgment 832, under 13). Judgment 832, under 14 (cited in part, below), poses a three-part test for determining whether the altered term is fundamental and essential. The test is as follows:
    (1) What is the nature of the altered term? ‘It may be in the contract or in the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules or in a decision, and whereas the contract or a decision may give rise to acquired rights the regulations and rules do not necessarily do so.’
    (2) What is the reason for the change? ‘It is material that the terms of appointment may often have to be adapted to circumstances, and there will ordinarily be no acquired right when a rule or a clause depends on variables such as the cost-of-living index or the value of the currency. Nor can the finances of the body that applies the terms of appointment be discounted.’
    (3) What is the consequence of allowing or disallowing an acquired right and the effect it will have on staff pay and benefits, and how do those who plead an acquired right fare as against others?”
    Also, as the Tribunal recently discussed in Judgment 4028, consideration 13, international civil servants are not entitled to have all the conditions of employment or retirement laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career and retirement. Most of those conditions can be altered though, depending on the nature and importance of the provision in question, staff may have an acquired right to its continued application.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4028, 4195

    Keywords:

    acquired right;

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal’s case law does not support an approach to determining whether an acquired right has been breached which entails the examination of an altered “package” of salary and benefits to justify a conclusion that the alteration of any given element of the package involved a violation or breach of an acquired right. The logical consequences of this approach would be that even though such an alteration to a given element may be minimal or entirely justified or both, because other changes are made to other elements of the “package” the minimal or justified alteration can be characterised as a breach of an acquired right. There is no principled basis for taking this approach though the Tribunal cannot discount the possibility that situations may arise where the effect of the alteration of a limited number of related benefits might be viewed as relevant to the characterisation of one alteration as being a breach of an acquired right.

    Keywords:

    acquired right; salary;

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law recognises that the alteration of a benefit can operate to the detriment of staff and this, of itself, does not constitute the breach of an acquired right. A further element was needed, as discussed in the opening paragraph of the quotation in consideration 10: the complainant should have demonstrated that the structure of the employment contract was disturbed and that the modifications impaired a fundamental term of appointment in consideration of which he accepted employment. The complainant has not demonstrated, to the Tribunal’s satisfaction, that this further element exists in the present case in relation to the changes impugned in these proceedings.

    Keywords:

    acquired right;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    acquired right; complaint dismissed; icsc decision; salary;



  • Judgment 4335


    131st Session, 2021
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of the allowance she received during her parental leave.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law states that most of the conditions of employment laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time when a staff member of an international organisation is recruited can be altered during their employment as a result of amendments to those provisions but that the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, the case law has established that the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced her or him to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (see, for example, Judgment 3074, consideration 15).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 832, 3074

    Keywords:

    acquired right;



  • Judgment 4277


    130th Session, 2020
    International Bureau of Weights and Measures
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    With regard to the decisions concerning pensions, the Tribunal points out that the staff members of international organisations are not entitled to have all the conditions of employment or retirement laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career and retirement. Most of those conditions can be altered during or after an employment relationship as a result of amendments to those provisions (see Judgment 3876, consideration 7).
    Of course, the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, a complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, according to the case law established in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced her or him to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2986 or 3135).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2089, 2682, 2986, 3135, 3876

    Keywords:

    acquired right; pension;



  • Judgment 4273


    130th Session, 2020
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge their classification in the new career structure established following the 2015 five-yearly review.

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has pointed out on a number of occasions, the staff members of international organisations are not entitled to have all the conditions of employment or retirement laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career and retirement. Most of those conditions can be altered during or after an employment relationship as a result of amendments to those provisions (see Judgments 3876, under 7, 3909, under 12, and 4028, under 13). The Tribunal has consistently held that the position is of course different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced her or him to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (see, for example, Judgments 2089, 2682, 2986, 3135, 3909 and 4028).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2089, 2682, 2986, 3135, 3876, 3909, 4028

    Keywords:

    acquired right;



  • Judgment 4257


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    [I]t is settled case law that the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment constitutes a breach of acquired rights when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted the appointment. The amendment to the applicable text must relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment (see, for example, Judgment 4028, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4028

    Keywords:

    acquired right;



  • Judgment 4195


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to modify the conditions governing sickness insurance for employees’ spouses.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    acquired right; complaint dismissed; health insurance;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal finds that none of the three measures introduced in the amendments to Article 83 breached any acquired rights. According to the case law, “[i]n Judgment 61 [...] the Tribunal held that the amendment of a rule to an official’s detriment and without his consent amounts to breach of an acquired right when the structure of the contract of appointment is disturbed or there is impairment of any fundamental term of appointment in consideration of which the official accepted appointment” (see Judgment 832, under 13). Judgment 832, under 14 (cited in part, below), poses a three-part test for determining whether the altered term is fundamental and essential. The test is as follows:
    (1) What is the nature of the altered term? “It may be in the contract or in the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules or in a decision, and whereas the contract or a decision may give rise to acquired rights the regulations and rules do not necessarily do so.”
    (2) What is the reason for the change? “It is material that the terms of appointment may often have to be adapted to circumstances, and there will ordinarily be no acquired right when a rule or a clause depends on variables such as the cost-of-living index or the value of the currency. Nor can the finances of the body that applies the terms of appointment be discounted.”
    (3) What is the consequence of allowing or disallowing an acquired right and the effect it will have on staff pay and benefits, and how do those who plead an acquired right fare as against others?

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832

    Keywords:

    acquired right;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal considers that the conditions under which health insurance for employees’ spouses is provided do not give rise to an acquired right. The Organisation is entitled to adjust the contribution rate if there are compelling reasons (including budgetary reasons), within reasonable limits. The Tribunal is satisfied in this case that the increased contribution rate resulting from the additional contribution for spouses is reasonable, justified and modest.

    Keywords:

    acquired right; budgetary reasons; health insurance;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainants contend that the breach of their acquired rights also amounts to discrimination, but the Tribunal finds, as it did in a similar case, that the Organisation “has not discriminated against them: far from it. Its purpose was to remove an unfair advantage the Rules used to confer on them. Such corrective action may not be treated as breach of acquired rights even if the advantage was enjoyed for a long time” (see Judgment 1241, under 24).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1241

    Keywords:

    acquired right; discrimination;



  • Judgment 4073


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the reduction of the rate of the expatriate premium paid to her.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    acquired right; allowance; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 4028


    126th Session, 2018
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge Service Order No.14/10 changing the health insurance scheme at the ITU, as well as individual decisions implementing that service order.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal found in Judgment 3909, under 12, international organisations’ staff members are not entitled to have all the conditions of employment or retirement laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career and retirement. Most of those conditions can be altered during or after an employment relationship as a result of amendments to those provisions (see also Judgment 3876, under 7).
    The Tribunal has consistently held that the position is of course different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced her or him to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (see, for example, Judgments 2089, 2682, 2986, 3135 and 3909 cited above).
    In this case, the Tribunal finds that the change to another health insurance scheme does not affect the staff’s actual right to membership of a social security scheme, but concerns solely the terms and conditions for giving effect to this right. [...]
    The Tribunal considers that, having regard to these factors, the change to another health insurance scheme which is criticised by the complainants does not adversely affect the balance of contractual obligations or alter a fundamental term of employment in consideration of which they accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced them to stay on. Hence, it cannot be considered as constituting a breach of an acquired right within the meaning of the case law cited above.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2089, 2682, 2986, 3135, 3876, 3909, 3909

    Keywords:

    acquired right;



  • 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.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    It is true that in this case, as the evidence clearly shows, the decision to stop the payment of the allowance, which represented a substantial part of the complainant’s remuneration, altered a fundamental term of employment in consideration of which he had decided to enter Eurocontrol’s service. In that respect, this measure could well be regarded as breaching an acquired right within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law established in Judgments 61, 832 and 986 (see, for example, Judgments 2696, under 5, or 3074, under 16).
    However, it is an established principle that only a benefit that has some basis in law may be protected as an acquired right (see Judgment 1334, under 23). The cancellation of an unjustified benefit will not therefore be regarded as a breach of an acquired right (see Judgments 1241, under 24, and 1446, under 13 and 14). Since, as stated above, the complainant received the expatriation allowance as a result of an unlawful contractual clause, he cannot validly invoke an acquired right to justify the continued payment of the allowance.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986, 1241, 1334, 1446, 2696, 3074

    Keywords:

    acquired right;



  • Judgment 3944


    125th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him following disciplinary proceedings.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    According to the case law established for example in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment without his or her consent constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced her or him to stay on. In order to decide whether there may have been a breach of an acquired right, it is therefore necessary to determine whether the altered terms of employment are fundamental and essential within the meaning of Judgment 832 (see, for example, Judgment 3571, under 7). In this case, the Tribunal considers that the abolition of the Joint Advisory Committee does not affect a fundamental and essential term of employment. Moreover, it cannot generally be accepted that the rules on disciplinary action are an integral part of the fundamental and essential terms of employment which induce a person to apply for a post or to remain in the international civil service.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 832, 986, 3571

    Keywords:

    acquired right; advisory body; disciplinary procedure; discontinuance;



  • Judgment 3876


    124th Session, 2017
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant requests the payment, after his death, of a pension for a surviving spouse to his wife and of an orphan’s pension to two children of whom he claims to be the biological father. He also claims allowances for dependent children.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    acquired right; complaint dismissed; pension;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that international organisations’ staff members do not have any right to have all the conditions of employment or retirement laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career and retirement. Most of those conditions can be altered during or after an employment relationship as a result of amendments to those provisions.
    Of course the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, according to the case law established for example in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced her or him to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2986 or 3135).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 832, 986, 2089, 2682, 2986, 3135

    Keywords:

    acquired right;



  • Judgment 3827


    124th Session, 2017
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her the lump sum paid to servants whose application to resign is accepted.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of the principles of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply (see Judgments 2459, under 9, and 2985, under 15).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459, 2985

    Keywords:

    acquired right; written rule;



  • Judgment 3676


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests a modification in the exchange rate averaging methodology for the calculation of his pension contributions.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [A]bsent the amendments recently made to the methodology, ESO is assuming a disproportionately greater burden of satisfying the requirements under the Fund to pay the total contributions payable in relation to the complainant and other staff. This is a legitimate consideration and militates against a conclusion that the alteration of the methodology used involved an alteration of a fundamental term of employment that would be protected by the principle concerning acquired rights.

    Keywords:

    acquired right; pension adjustment system;

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    The basic principle is that an amendment to an official’s detriment of a provision governing her or his status constitutes a breach of an acquired right only if it adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced her or him to stay on. In the present case the Tribunal accepts that there was an alteration to a term on which the complainant was employed in the sense that the method of calculating his contribution to the pension fund was altered and, at least at the present moment, increased the contribution and, in that regard, it might be said to be an alteration to his detriment. [...]
    In Judgment 832, consideration 14, the Tribunal identified three tests to determine whether the altered term is fundamental and essential. The second test was the reason for the change. Importantly, the Tribunal recognised that ordinarily there would be no acquired right when a rule or a clause depends on variables such as the value of currency. So the mere fact that a pension contribution might change because of fluctuations in exchange rates would not engage the protection of the principle concerning acquired rights.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 832

    Keywords:

    acquired right; pension adjustment system;



  • Judgment 3623


    121st Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to assign him to non-active status and to replace his invalidity pension by an invalidity allowance.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The main issue raised in this complaint is whether or not the EPO violated an acquired right of the complainant. The Tribunal finds no such violation. A rule which concerns a long-term issue (such as pensions which last the remainder of the employees’ lifetimes) may be modified throughout the years. The changes in circumstances which may require the rule to be amended must be reasonable and the changes have to balance the interests of the employees and the Organisation. The interest of current and future employees who are not currently affected by the rule but shall be in the future is also to be taken into account by the Organisation. The question of the sustainability of pension schemes must be a primary concern to the Organisation and as such may naturally require adjustments to be made to the norm regulating pension schemes over time. This question has already been examined by the Tribunal in relation to the same Administrative Council’s decision CA/D 30/07.

    Keywords:

    acquired right;



  • Judgment 3524


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-application to her of a rule concerning automatic promotion.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law, as recalled in Judgment 2682, under 6, establishes that “an acquired right is breached only when [...] an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on. In order to determine whether there has been a breach of acquired rights, it is therefore necessary to ascertain whether the altered terms of employment are fundamental and essential within the meaning of Judgment 832”. This case law was confirmed in Judgment 3074 (under 15 and 16).
    It is well settled that the particular arrangements for the grant of promotion confer no acquired rights, because on recruitment staff cannot foretell how they will fare in their career. An organisation may always change the rules on promotion for the sake of efficiency and so as to cope with changing circumstances. (See Judgment 1025, under 4.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1025, 2682, 3074

    Keywords:

    acquired right; promotion;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    acquired right; complaint dismissed; equal treatment; promotion;



  • Judgment 3375


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims, on the basis of an alleged acquired right, the application of the invalidity pension scheme in force prior to his placement on non-active status on grounds of invalidity.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    acquired right; complaint dismissed; disability benefit;



  • Judgment 3373


    118th Session, 2014
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal stated that the Organisation, after having outsourced a part of the complainant's duties, breached its duty of care because it failed to ensure that the implementation of the arrangement did not place the complainant in financial difficulties.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "According to the consistent case law of the Tribunal, an international organisation “necessarily has power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including by the abolition of posts […] and the redeployment of staff” (see Judgment 2510, under 10). The concept of redeployment must be understood as including not only the assignment of staff to different posts, but also requiring them to accept a new or different method of organising continuous service. It follows that a particular model of organising a service, such as the one previously in force in this case, cannot constitute an acquired right."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2510

    Keywords:

    acquired right; redeployment; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 3358


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who has dual nationality, impugns the cessation of the payment of an education allowance on the ground that he was a national of the country in which he served.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The decision to cease paying the education allowance would be open to criticism only if it had violated acquired rights or a legitimate expectation the complainant might have had that the previous situation would be maintained."

    Keywords:

    acquired right; legitimate expectation;

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


 
Last updated: 21.10.2021 ^ top