Interpretation (237,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Interpretation
Total judgments found: 195
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
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; interpretation of rules;
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; interpretation of rules; 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; interpretation of rules;
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; interpretation of rules;
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; interpretation of rules;
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;
Judgment 3742
123rd Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the direct appointment of Ms S. to the position of Director, Office of Support to Decentralization.
Consideration 4
Extract:
There is nothing in the provision which suggests the applicability of the ejusdem generis rule. The words of the provision are clear and must be so interpreted on the primary rule of interpretation that words which are unambiguous are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see Judgments 1222, under 4, 3213, under 6, and 3707, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1222, 3213, 3707
Keywords:
interpretation;
Judgment 3734
123rd Session, 2017
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the IAEA’s decision not to pay her compensation for the loss of earning capacity beyond the age of 60.
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 and any ambiguity in a provision should be construed in favour of the staff member and not the organization (see, for example, Judgments 2276, under 4, and 3310, under 7). It is the obvious and ordinary meaning of the words in the provision that must be discerned and not just a phrase taken in isolation. Article 20(a) establishes the duration of the entitlement to compensation in cases where the loss of earning capacity is determined to be total. It provides that an official is entitled to this compensation from the date on which payment ceases under Article 17(a) and “for so long as the disability continues”. The provision is clear and unambiguous. The entitlement to compensation is contingent on the presence of the disability only. Moreover, if the drafter of the provisions had intended that the entitlement to the payment of the compensation terminate upon reaching the age of retirement, it would have been explicitly stated.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2276, 3310
Keywords:
interpretation;
Judgment 3701
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of his reckonable previous experience upon recruitment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[I]t would be helpful [...] to recall the basic principles of interpretation as stated by the Tribunal. Those principles state that the words of a provision are to be interpreted in good faith giving them their ordinary and natural meaning in their context. Where the language of the text is clear and unambiguous, the words must be given effect without looking outside of the text to determine the meaning. Texts which are ambiguous are to be construed in favour of the staff member.
Keywords:
interpretation; interpretation of rules;
Judgment 3696
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of her reckonable previous experience upon recruitment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[I]t would be helpful [...] to recall the basic principles of interpretation as stated by the Tribunal. Those
principles state that the words of a provision are to be interpreted in good faith giving them their ordinary and natural meaning in their context. Where the language of the text is clear and unambiguous, the words must be given effect without looking outside of the text to determine the meaning. Texts which are ambiguous are to be construed in favour of the staff member.
Keywords:
interpretation;
Judgment 3557
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"A significant part of the complainant’s submissions is devoted to challenging certain modifications to the EPO’s internal appeal procedure which were introduced in 2013. In his claims for relief, he specifically asks the Tribunal to “clarify some points of the procedure of the Internal Appeals Committee”. The complainant clearly misunderstands the role of the Tribunal. A request for interpretation of a normative text of an organization cannot be formulated as an independent claim before the Tribunal, outside the context of alleged non-observance of the terms of appointment of an official. This claim is therefore clearly irreceivable."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; interpretation; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3483
120th Session, 2015
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the FAO’s decision not to pay her a daily subsistence allowance during her appointment in Rome.
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The Tribunal has often stated that the function of a court of law is to interpret and apply a contract in accordance with the real intention of the parties as expressed in the language of the contract. It is basic principle that when a term of employment is clear and unambiguous the parties are bound by that term unless there is evidence that warrants looking behind the mere wording of the text to ascertain the parties’ real intention (see, for example, Judgment 1385, under 12). The Tribunal has also stated that where any term of employment is expressed in writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the documents that are produced. A contract or term therein may be vitiated or varied if there is overwhelming evidence that the parties had a contrary intention to that which is expressed in the text (see, for example, Judgment 1634, under 21)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1385, 1634
Keywords:
contract; interpretation;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
