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

Interpretation (237,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Interpretation
Total judgments found: 181

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >

  • Judgment 4191


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his application for payment of an expatriation allowance.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal has explained the rationale and context for the grant of the expatriation allowance, and given guidance as to the interpretation of the terms “permanently resident” for the purpose of Article 72(1)(b), in [...] Judgment 2865, under 4(b) [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2865

    Keywords:

    expatriation allowance; interpretation; residence;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The issue is whether, if in [the] three-year period there is service which is not to be counted, the consequence is that the expatriation allowance is payable, or whether that service is ignored when identifying the end point of the three-year period counting backwards. The answer does not clearly emerge from the text, but does from a consideration of the purpose of the provision and the rationale for the benefit. The provision is intended to compensate employees who have left their permanent home in one country to take up employment in another (see Judgment 2925, under 3). That purpose is best served by the latter approach to the meaning of the provision, rather than by the former approach, which would reward a person who has mainly resided in the duty country, even for decades, but had for a period within the three years, perhaps extremely briefly, been, for example, employed by an international organisation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2925

    Keywords:

    expatriation allowance; interpretation;



  • Judgment 4189


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her application for payment of an expatriation allowance.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has explained the rationale and context for the grant of the expatriation allowance, and has given guidance as to the interpretation of the terms “permanently resident” for the purpose of Article 72(1)(b), in the following statements in Judgment 2865, under 4(b) [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2865

    Keywords:

    expatriation allowance; interpretation; residence;



  • Judgment 4188


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her application for payment of an expatriation allowance.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The issue is whether, if in [the] three-year period there is service which is not to be counted, the consequence is that the expatriation allowance is payable, or whether that service is ignored when identifying, looking backwards, the end point of the three-year period. The answer does not clearly emerge from the text, but does from a consideration of the purpose of the provision and the rationale for the benefit. The provision is intended to compensate employees who have left their permanent home in one country to take up employment in another (see Judgment 2925, under 3). That purpose is best served by the latter approach to the meaning of the provision, rather than by the former approach, which would reward a person who has mainly resided in the duty country, even for decades, but had for a period within the three years, perhaps extremely briefly, been, for example, employed by an international organisation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2925

    Keywords:

    expatriation allowance; interpretation;



  • Judgment 4178


    128th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him a promotion in the 2014 professional promotion exercise.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The principles of statutory interpretation are well settled in the case law. The primary rule is that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see, for example, Judgments 3310, consideration 7, and 2276, consideration 4). Additionally, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3734, consideration 4, “[i]t is the obvious and ordinary meaning of the words in the provision that must be discerned and not just a phrase taken in isolation”. The meaning of the phrase “are expected to” read in the context of the complete text of the provision simply conveys to the Regional Directors what they are to do at that point in the process. The provision instructs the Regional Directors to do two things. First, the Regional Directors are to rank the reviewed candidates in order of priority. Second, the Regional Directors are to endorse the recommendation of “no more than” 50% of the candidates reviewed at the second level. The obvious and ordinary meaning of this provision does not allow for any deviation from the specified upper limit of the allotted quota by the Regional Directors.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2276, 3310, 3734

    Keywords:

    interpretation;



  • Judgment 4162


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the final decision on her claim for compensation for a service-incurred injury or illness.

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    It is [...] observed that the obvious and ordinary meaning of “sustained” in the context of a decision is to uphold or affirm the earlier decision. The ordinary meaning of “sustained” does not include a decision that alters the prior decision. However, the same provision provides that if “the Director-General alters his original decision in favour of the claimant” the Organization bears the identified costs. The language of the provision is clear and unambiguous. If the drafter of the provision had intended that the claimant would bear the identified costs in the event that the original decision was altered to her or his detriment it would have been explicitly stated.

    Keywords:

    costs; interpretation;



  • Judgment 4145


    128th Session, 2019
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer one of his subordinates to another team.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The principles of statutory interpretation are well settled in the case law. The primary rule is that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see, for example, Judgments 3310, consideration 7, and 2276, consideration 4). Additionally, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3734, consideration 4, “[i]t is the obvious and ordinary meaning of the words in the provision that must be discerned and not just a phrase taken in isolation”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2276, 3310, 3734

    Keywords:

    interpretation;



  • Judgment 4138


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Considerations 35-36

    Extract:

    In ascertaining the ICSC’s powers, the text of the Statute construed purposively is of paramount importance. The text of Articles 10 and 11 is comparatively clear, particularly having regard to the immediate context. The two articles are clearly intended to demark different functions or powers. If the power to determine post adjustments in a quantitative sense is conferred by Article 10(b), then the power is not conferred by Article 11 and, specifically, by the expression “[establishing] the classification of duty stations for the purpose of applying post adjustments”. Each provision is mutually exclusive of the other in the sense that the power to decide in relation to specified matters is conferred by one Article and the power to recommend only in relation to other specified matters is created by the other Article. It is inconceivable that each provision confers a power to address or deal with the same subject matter.

    Even if the words “[t]he scales” are intended to qualify not only “salaries” but also “post adjustments”, there is little room to doubt that Article 10(b) is concerned with the quantification of salaries and post adjustments that would be the subject of recommendation. Indeed, Article 12(2) creates an exception to the limitation that the ICSC is only to recommend salary scales. That paragraph confers power to determine salary scales at a particular duty station rather than make a recommendation if requested by the executive head after consultation with staff representatives. The existence of this exception in relation to salary scales and its absence in relation to post adjustments, reinforces the construction of the Statute that the ICSC’s power in relation to the quantification of post adjustments is limited to making recommendations. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard only to the text of the Statute, that Article 11(c) is not a source of power to make a decision quantifying post adjustments.

    Keywords:

    icsc statute; interpretation;

    Consideration 39

    Extract:

    [W]hatever may have emerged systemically by actions of the General Assembly cannot, in the absence of an amendment to the Statute, found an interpretation of the Statute, adopted almost one and a half decades earlier, which is at odds with its terms. Article 30 of the Statute provides that amendments to it are to be made by the General Assembly and are subject to the same acceptance procedure “as the present statute”. Article 1 provides that acceptance involves notification thereof in writing by the executive head of the organization.

    Keywords:

    icsc statute; interpretation;



  • Judgment 4137


    128th Session, 2019
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Considerations 27-28

    Extract:

    In ascertaining the ICSC’s powers, the text of the Statute construed purposively is of paramount importance. The text of Articles 10 and 11 is comparatively clear, particularly having regard to the immediate context. The two articles are clearly intended to demark different functions or powers. If the power to determine post adjustments in a quantitative sense is conferred by Article 10(b), then the power is not conferred by Article 11 and, specifically, by the expression “[establishing] the classification of duty stations for the purpose of applying post adjustments”. Each provision is mutually exclusive of the other in the sense that the power to decide in relation to specified matters is conferred by one Article and the power to recommend only in relation to other specified matters is created by the other Article. It is inconceivable that each provision confers a power to address or deal with the same subject matter.

    Even if the words “[t]he scales” are intended to qualify not only “salaries” but also “post adjustments”, there is little room to doubt that Article 10(b) is concerned with the quantification of salaries and post adjustments that would be the subject of recommendation. Indeed, Article 12(2) creates an exception to the limitation that the ICSC is only to recommend salary scales. That paragraph confers power to determine salary scales at a particular duty station rather than make a recommendation if requested by the executive head after consultation with staff representatives. The existence of this exception in relation to salary scales and its absence in relation to post adjustments, reinforces the construction of the Statute that the ICSC’s power in relation to the quantification of post adjustments is limited to making recommendations. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard only to the text of the Statute, that Article 11(c) is not a source of power to make a decision quantifying post adjustments.

    Keywords:

    icsc statute; interpretation;

    Consideration 31

    Extract:

    [W]hatever may have emerged systemically by actions of the General Assembly cannot, in the absence of an amendment to the Statute, found an interpretation of the Statute, adopted almost one and a half decades earlier, which is at odds with its terms. Article 30 of the Statute provides that amendments to it are to be made by the General Assembly and are subject to the same acceptance procedure “as the present statute”. Article 1 provides that acceptance involves notification thereof in writing by the executive head of the organization.

    Keywords:

    icsc statute; interpretation;



  • Judgment 4136


    128th Session, 2019
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Considerations 27-28

    Extract:

    In ascertaining the ICSC’s powers, the text of the Statute construed purposively is of paramount importance. The text of Articles 10 and 11 is comparatively clear, particularly having regard to the immediate context. The two articles are clearly intended to demark different functions or powers. If the power to determine post adjustments in a quantitative sense is conferred by Article 10(b), then the power is not conferred by Article 11 and, specifically, by the expression “[establishing] the classification of duty stations for the purpose of applying post adjustments”. Each provision is mutually exclusive of the other in the sense that the power to decide in relation to specified matters is conferred by one Article and the power to recommend only in relation to other specified matters is created by the other Article. It is inconceivable that each provision confers a power to address or deal with the same subject matter.

    Even if the words “[t]he scales” are intended to qualify not only “salaries” but also “post adjustments”, there is little room to doubt that Article 10(b) is concerned with the quantification of salaries and post adjustments that would be the subject of recommendation. Indeed, Article 12(2) creates an exception to the limitation that the ICSC is only to recommend salary scales. That paragraph confers power to determine salary scales at a particular duty station rather than make a recommendation if requested by the executive head after consultation with staff representatives. The existence of this exception in relation to salary scales and its absence in relation to post adjustments, reinforces the construction of the Statute that the ICSC’s power in relation to the quantification of post adjustments is limited to making recommendations. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard only to the text of the Statute, that Article 11(c) is not a source of power to make a decision quantifying post adjustments.

    Keywords:

    icsc statute; interpretation;

    Consideration 31

    Extract:

    [W]hatever may have emerged systemically by actions of the General Assembly cannot, in the absence of an amendment to the Statute, found an interpretation of the Statute, adopted almost one and a half decades earlier, which is at odds with its terms. Article 30 of the Statute provides that amendments to it are to be made by the General Assembly and are subject to the same acceptance procedure “as the present statute”. Article 1 provides that acceptance involves notification thereof in writing by the executive head of the organization.

    Keywords:

    icsc statute; interpretation;



  • Judgment 4135


    128th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Considerations 34-35

    Extract:

    In ascertaining the ICSC’s powers, the text of the Statute construed purposively is of paramount importance. The text of Articles 10 and 11 is comparatively clear, particularly having regard to the immediate context. The two articles are clearly intended to demark different functions or powers. If the power to determine post adjustments in a quantitative sense is conferred by Article 10(b), then the power is not conferred by Article 11 and, specifically, by the expression “[establishing] the classification of duty stations for the purpose of applying post adjustments”. Each provision is mutually exclusive of the other in the sense that the power to decide in relation to specified matters is conferred by one Article and the power to recommend only in relation to other specified matters is created by the other Article. It is inconceivable that each provision confers a power to address or deal with the same subject matter.

    Even if the words “[t]he scales” are intended to qualify not only “salaries” but also “post adjustments”, there is little room to doubt that Article 10(b) is concerned with the quantification of salaries and post adjustments that would be the subject of recommendation. Indeed, Article 12(2) creates an exception to the limitation that the ICSC is only to recommend salary scales. That paragraph confers power to determine salary scales at a particular duty station rather than make a recommendation if requested by the executive head after consultation with staff representatives. The existence of this exception in relation to salary scales and its absence in relation to post adjustments, reinforces the construction of the Statute that the ICSC’s power in relation to the quantification of post adjustments is limited to making recommendations. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard only to the text of the Statute, that Article 11(c) is not a source of power to make a decision quantifying post adjustments.

    Keywords:

    icsc statute; interpretation;

    Consideration 38

    Extract:

    [W]hatever may have emerged systemically by actions of the General Assembly cannot, in the absence of an amendment to the Statute, found an interpretation of the Statute, adopted almost one and a half decades earlier, which is at odds with its terms. Article 30 of the Statute provides that amendments to it are to be made by the General Assembly and are subject to the same acceptance procedure “as the present statute”. Article 1 provides that acceptance involves notification thereof in writing by the executive head of the organization.

    Keywords:

    icsc statute; interpretation;



  • Judgment 4134


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Considerations 33-34

    Extract:

    In ascertaining the ICSC’s powers, the text of the Statute construed purposively is of paramount importance. The text of Articles 10 and 11 is comparatively clear, particularly having regard to the immediate context. The two Articles are clearly intended to demark different functions or powers. If the power to determine post adjustments in a quantitative sense is conferred by Article 10(b), then the power is not conferred by Article 11 and, specifically, by the expression “[establishing] the classification of duty stations for the purpose of applying post adjustments”. Each provision is mutually exclusive of the other in the sense that the power to decide in relation to specified matters is conferred by one Article and the power to recommend only in relation to other specified matters is created by the other Article. It is inconceivable that each provision confers a power to address or deal with the same subject matter.

    Even if the words “[t]he scales” are intended to qualify not only “salaries” but also “post adjustments”, there is little room to doubt that Article 10(b) is concerned with the quantification of salaries and post adjustments that would be the subject of recommendation. Indeed, Article 12(2) creates an exception to the limitation that the ICSC is only to recommend salary scales. That paragraph confers power to determine salary scales at a particular duty station rather than make a recommendation if requested by the executive head after consultation with staff representatives. The existence of this exception in relation to salary scales and its absence in relation to post adjustments, reinforces the construction of the Statute that the ICSC’s power in relation to the quantification of post adjustments is limited to making recommendations. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard only to the text of the Statute, that Article 11(c) is not a source of power to make a decision quantifying post adjustments.

    Keywords:

    icsc statute; interpretation;

    Consideration 37

    Extract:

    [W]hatever may have emerged systemically by actions of the General Assembly cannot, in the absence of an amendment to the Statute, found an interpretation of the Statute, adopted almost one and a half decades earlier, which is at odds with its terms. Article 30 of the Statute provides that amendments to it are to be made by the General Assembly and are subject to the same acceptance procedure “as the present statute”. Article 1 provides that acceptance involves notification thereof in writing by the executive head of the organization.

    Keywords:

    icsc statute; interpretation;



  • Judgment 4066


    127th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote her in the 2013 promotion exercise.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    It is a basic rule of interpretation that words which are clear and unambiguous are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning and that words must be construed objectively in their context and in keeping with their purport and purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4031, under 5, and 3744, under 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3744, 4031

    Keywords:

    interpretation;



  • Judgment 4057


    127th Session, 2019
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reduce her pension on the basis of a reduction of the consumer price index.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The rule or principle of interpretation is that a clause in a document should be interpreted in favour of the party who did not draft the clause (in this case the staff), and not in favour of the party who did draft the clause, sought the inclusion of the clause or possibly in whose interests the clause was intended to operate (that is to say contra proferentem). However this rule, whatever its width, only operates in circumstances where the clause is ambiguous (see, for example, Judgment 1755, consideration 12, and, more recently, Judgment 3355, consideration 16).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1755, 3355

    Keywords:

    contra proferentem; interpretation; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 4022


    126th Session, 2018
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the WTO’s decision to grant him local recruitment status upon joining the Organization.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    “[R]esident” in Staff Rule 103.1(a) means simple residence. There is nothing in the provision which shows that this is to be equated with “domicile”, “permanent abode”, whether the staff member considers herself or himself integrated locally, or would immediately leave Switzerland on leaving the employment to which recruited. A staff member is “resident”, and thus “locally recruited” under Staff Rule 103.1(a), if at the time of recruitment she or he is actually resident, or effectively lives, at an address within the stated distance. Staff Rule 103.1(a) is clear and unambiguous and therefore its terms are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see Judgment 3742, consideration 4). These terms provide that a person is locally recruited, if at the time of recruitment she or he resided at a place within 75 km from the Pont du Mont-Blanc in Geneva, regardless of the duration of that residence, unless she or he fell into the stated exceptions. The complainant did not fall within any of the stated exceptions and had resided and worked in Geneva for some sixteen years prior to being recruited. While in his Personal History Form he gave a United States address as his permanent address, he also gave his home address in Geneva as his present address. This signified that at the time of his recruitment he resided within the area identified in Staff Rule 103.1(a), which rendered him locally recruited.
    It did not matter, as the complainant suggests, that although he “lived in Geneva for some time, he never applied for Swiss nationality”. This is in fact an admission that he was resident within the given area that rendered him locally recruited under Staff Rule 103.1(a). Neither did it matter, as the complainant further suggests, that he did not request the C permit which he held; owned no property in Switzerland; had worked with a company which was not subject to Swiss law; had always been paid by that company through his bank account in the United States (US), which he continued to maintain; possessed US credit cards; contributed to a pension account only in the US and participated in its social security scheme for retirement there only; continued to vote in US elections and to file US income tax declarations, which US law obliges him to do as a citizen; sends his children to summer school in the US and spends his annual summer holidays there with his family. Consequently, the first ground of the complaint is unfounded.

    Keywords:

    interpretation; residence;



  • Judgment 4009


    126th Session, 2018
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The wording of Staff Regulation 10 and Staff Rule 10.1 is clear and must be construed according to the primary rule that unambiguous words must be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see Judgments 3701, under 4, 3213, under 6, and 1222, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1222, 3213, 3701

    Keywords:

    interpretation;



  • Judgment 4008


    126th Session, 2018
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The wording of Staff Regulation 10 and Staff Rule 10.1 is clear and must be construed according to the primary rule that unambiguous words must be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see Judgments 3701, under 4, 3213, under 6, and 1222, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1222, 3213, 3701

    Keywords:

    interpretation;



  • Judgment 3922


    125th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to offer her a three-month renewal of her contract and to reject the claims she made with respect to her performance evaluation for 2012, the reclassification of her post, the length of her last contract and her allegations of harassment, retaliation and intimidation.

    Considerations 13-14

    Extract:

    Paragraph 3 under the heading “Performance Feedback” in Annex VII of the Handbook relevantly states as follows:
    “Feedback is collected over the performance cycle [...] from multiple sources, such as colleagues on the team, peers from outside the employee’s division/department who have worked with the employee on specific tasks or projects, managers, subordinates and external stakeholders, as applicable. The selection of additional feedback givers is coordinated with the employee. The line manager selects, with the employee’s input, the group of feedback givers in order to obtain a balanced view about the performance of the employee being evaluated. Where there is no agreement on the list of feedback givers, the HR Business Partner shall facilitate resolution.”
    This provision is intended to ensure that feedback in the performance evaluation process is objective, transparent, and well informed. It does not contemplate that feedback will be sought from a person who is not familiar with the work of a subject employee. The ejusdem generis rule operates in its interpretation to ensure that “managers, subordinates and external stakeholders”, as well as “additional feedback givers”, are persons who are familiar with the subject employee’s work during the relevant performance evaluation cycle.
    [...] However, the Tribunal accepts the complainant’s assertions, which the Fund has not denied, that two other persons with whom she did not work during 2012 gave feedback for the review process and that she had no input into their selection as feedback givers.

    Keywords:

    interpretation; performance report;



  • Judgment 3822


    124th Session, 2017
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for interpretation and execution of Judgment 3507.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Although the complainant believed that she should file an application for interpretation to this end, the Tribunal observes that the application can also be regarded, to a large extent, as an application for execution. Indeed, it is clear that in the complainant’s mind, the main purpose of the application, apart from obtaining an interpretation of the judgment, is to secure full execution of the judgment, as witness her claims for payment of the balance of the award against the Global Fund that she considers due and for interest thereon.

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; interpretation;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, an application for interpretation can ordinarily apply only to the decision in a judgment, and not to the grounds thereof. However, it is accepted that such an application can also refer to a ground when a decision refers expressly thereto (see Judgments 2483, under 3, 3271, under 4, and 3564, under 1). From that point of view, it is open to the complainant, in the circumstances of the case, to request interpretation of consideration 18 of Judgment 3507 to which, as has been said, the decision refers.
    However, an application for interpretation is receivable only if the meaning of the judgment concerned is uncertain or ambiguous to such an extent that its execution is impossible (see, for example, Judgments 1306, under 2, 3014, under 3, or [...] Judgment 3271, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1306, 2483, 3014, 3271, 3507, 3564

    Keywords:

    interpretation;



  • Judgment 3781


    123rd Session, 2017
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to reimburse her for school fees paid in respect of two dependent children.

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    The importance of establishing a settled interpretation of a phrase in a regulatory provision that is subject to more than one interpretation and an organisation’s obligations in the application of that interpretation are discussed in Judgment 3541, under 28.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3541

    Keywords:

    interpretation;



  • Judgment 3744


    123rd Session, 2017
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the FAO’s decision to terminate his appointment for health reasons.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    These provisions are clear and unambiguous and are to be interpreted as such in keeping with the statement in Judgment 1456, for example, that “[i]n construing the rules the Tribunal is bound to take an objective view and pay heed, in line with the method approved in international law, to their wording, context, purport and purpose” (see Judgment 1456, under 16).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1456

    Keywords:

    interpretation;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top