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

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



  • Judgment 3158


    114th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the decision not to reimburse the pharmaceutical products prescribed by his doctor.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he conditions listed in the explanatory note of 20 October 2000 involve an interpretation of both 'generally accepted medical treatment' and 'proven therapeutic effects', in order to determine what constitutes 'medicines' for the purpose of Article 20(b)(2) of the [Collective Insurance Contract]. The Tribunal considers that such an interpretation implies a medical opinion. Accordingly, the questions of whether the products prescribed for the use of the complainant are 'medicines' for the purpose of the insurance policy and whether the complainant is entitled to be reimbursed under the policy consistent with his rights under Article 83 of the Service Regulations, require a medical opinion. As a result, these questions have to be referred to the Medical Committee in accordance with Article 90(1), paragraph 2 [...]."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Articles 83 and 90 of Service Regulations

    Keywords:

    advisory body; insurance; insurance benefit; interpretation; medical board; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[T]he consensus between the Office and the insurance broker contained in the explanatory note of 20 October 2000
    [...] should not be considered as binding, since it merely establishes guidelines interpreting the term 'medicines' as contained in Article 20(b)(2) of the [Collective Insurance Contract]."

    Keywords:

    insurance; insurance benefit; interpretation;



  • Judgment 3154


    114th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The ITU applies for interpretation of paragraph 2 of the decision in Judgment 2958 concerning the definition of "gross salary" for the calculation of termination indemnity.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The ordinary meaning of 'gross salary' is the full amount of a staff memberís regular remuneration including allowances, overtime pay, commissions and bonuses, and any other amount usually paid, before any deductions are made. In context, the notion of 'gross salary' was chosen to indicate the base salary prior to the staff deduction, plus all allowances and benefits. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that the award of damages had to be the equivalent of reinstatement and that the express purpose was to compensate the complainant for the time he 'should have worked with the Union'."

    Keywords:

    amount; application for interpretation; compensation; gross salary; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; material damages;



  • Judgment 3080


    112th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "[A] passing reference to "husband" or "wife" in the Staff Rules is not sufficient to warrant interpreting all the relevant provisions thereof as denying same-sex spouses the entitlements concerned (see Judgment 2590 [...], under 6)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2590

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; insurance benefit; interpretation; marital status; provision; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3003


    111th Session, 2011
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "[A]s the Tribunal pointed out in [...] Judgment 82, under 7, the execution of a judgment by an organisation cannot under any circumstances be considered as acceptance of the judgment, nor divest it of its right to submit the judgment to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion [under Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article XII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 82

    Keywords:

    acceptance; advisory opinion of icj; consequence; consultation; effect; execution of judgment; icj; iloat statute; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; organisation; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 2959


    110th Session, 2011
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[T]he expression 'so far as practicable' cannot be interpreted to mean that for certain specific posts a competitive selection process can automatically be considered as not practicable (ubi lex voluit dixit, ubi noluit tacuit)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2620

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; interpretation; post; provision;



  • Judgment 2882


    108th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "Although rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must not be construed too pedantically or set traps for staff members who are defending their rights. If these staff members break such a rule, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. Consequently, a staff member who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal (see Judgments 1734, under 3, and 1832, under 6). [...] The fact that an appeal is mistakenly submitted directly to the Appeal Board, as occurred in this case, cannot entail the irreceivability of the appeal. The Appeal Board has a duty to forward to the Director General any document which is intended for his attention and which has been sent to it in error, in order that it may be treated as a request for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 1832

    Keywords:

    breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; interpretation; organisation's duties; proportionality; purpose; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; written rule;



  • Judgment 2868


    108th Session, 2010
    South Centre
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 29

    Extract:

    "[W]ith respect to the Centre's assertion that this implementing measure was approved by the Council [...], the Tribunal observes that the adoption of a so-called "interpretative clarification" that purports to give the Executive Director the authority to take certain action cannot validate an earlier decision taken without the requisite authority."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; enforcement; executive body; interpretation; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 2805


    106th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4, 5 and 7

    Extract:

    The complainant lodged an appeal against the decision to reject his complaint of harassment, saying that his counsel would provide further details at a later date. The EPO dismissed the appeal due to the absence of a statement in support thereof. Before the Tribunal, the Organisation contends that the complainant failed to exhaust the internal means of redress.
    "The issue at the centre of the complaint is whether it is necessary to provide grounds of appeal."
    "There is no express provision in the Service Regulations or in Circular No. 286 requiring that grounds of appeal be specified when lodging an appeal."
    "Where regulations and rules or other written documents are silent as to a matter, a term dealing with that matter may be implied, but only if it is so obviously comprehended within the text used in the regulations and rules or other document that its statement is unnecessary, or, if the term to be implied is necessary to give effect to some other term."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; general principle; interpretation; no provision; provision; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2742


    105th Session, 2008
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 34

    Extract:

    "It was said in Judgment 2510 that 'an international organisation necessarily has power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including by the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff'. The word 'necessarily' in that statement indicates that that power will be implied even if it is not expressly conferred by the relevant regulations. However, that power cannot be implied if it is contrary to the regulations."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2510

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; creation of post; discretion; interpretation; organisation; reorganisation; written rule;



  • Judgment 2661


    103rd Session, 2007
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 809 the Tribunal held that, in order to justify the imposition of special leave, the Organisation must show 'that use was not made of the special leave for any purpose extraneous to the Organization's interests and that the arrangement was a reasonable though not necessarily the only reasonable way out of the dilemma'. However, it must be noted that this statement was made in a context where a staff member had been required to take special leave until a new post was found."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 809

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; interpretation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; purpose; special leave; transitional measures;



  • Judgment 2657


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post. The Organisation submits that the Tribunal is not competent to hear complaints from external applicants for a post in an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction. "However regrettable a decision declining jurisdiction may be, in that the complainant is liable to feel that he is the victim of a denial of justice, the Tribunal has no option but to confirm the well-established case law according to which it is a court of limited jurisdiction and 'bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence', as stated in Judgment 67, delivered on 26 October 1962. [...]
    It [can be inferred from Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal] that persons who are applicants for a post in an international organisation but who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. It is only in a case where, even in the absence of a contract signed by the parties, the commitments made by the two sides are equivalent to a contract that the Tribunal can decide to retain jurisdiction (see for example Judgment 339). According to Judgment 621, there must be 'an unquestioned and unqualified concordance of will on all terms of the relationship'. That is not the case, however, in the present circumstances: while proposals regarding an appointment were unquestionably made to the complainant, the defendant was not bound by them until it had established that the conditions governing appointments laid down in the regulations were met."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 339, 621

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; exception; external candidate; formal requirements; grounds; handicapped person; iloat statute; intention of parties; interpretation; medical examination; medical fitness; open competition; organisation; post; proposal; provision; refusal; terms of appointment; vested competence; written rule;



  • Judgment 2644


    103rd Session, 2007
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "There are occasions when a staff member may treat a communication or other action (for example, a payment to his or her bank account) as embodying a decision with respect to his or her entitlements (see Judgment 2629 [...]). However, where [...] there is no indication that the communication in question constitutes a final decision, there are and may be circumstances that lead a staff member to reasonably conclude that it does not. Particularly is that so if, as in the present case, it concerns a matter that has not been the subject of an express claim or there is nothing to suggest that the matter in question has been considered by a person with authority to make a final decision thereon."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2629

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; interpretation; official; payment; request by a party; right;



  • Judgment 2643


    103rd Session, 2007
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant, a British national, entered into a "Civil Solidarity Contract" (PACS) under French law with his same-sex partner and had his partnership registered under the Civil Partnership Act applicable to British citizens. The ITU refused to recognise his partner as his dependent spouse for determination of the benefits pertaining to that status. "The Tribunal has accepted in several recent judgments that same-sex marriages (see Judgment 2590) and unions taking the form of 'registered partnerships' must be recognised where the national legislation applicable to the staff member concerned allows persons who have contracted such unions to be treated as 'spouses' (see Judgments 2549 and 2550). The important difference between the present case and those previously decided lies in the fact that the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules explicitly define the concept of spouses as denoting husband and wife in a large number of provisions, and that, contrary to the situations examined in Judgments 2549 and 2550, the ITU refuses to accept that same-sex unions lawfully contracted under the national legislation of the official concerned may be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. It follows that the defendant was not wrong in asserting that, in the light of the case law and the applicable Regulations and Rules as they currently stand, the Secretary-General was barred from giving the term 'spouse' the broad interpretation requested."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2590

    Keywords:

    applicable law; case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; marital status; provision; purpose; refusal; same; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 2567


    101st Session, 2006
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[W]here a doubt arises regarding the meaning which should reasonably be given to the clause of a contract, according to the principle of good faith the clause should be interpreted to the detriment of the party which drafted the contract."

    Keywords:

    contract; general principle; good faith; intention of parties; interpretation; provision;



  • Judgment 2553


    101st Session, 2006
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 5 and 6

    Extract:

    Harassment is described in IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922 as follows:
    "Harassment is any conduct or comment made by a staff member or group of staff members on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation. It can take many different forms, including, for example: threatening comments, whether oral or written, or threatening physical behaviour; intimidation, blackmail or coercion; making deliberate insults related to a person's personal or professional competence; humiliating, degrading or making offensive or abusive personal remarks to someone; undermining or isolating people; or making it impossible for staff to do their job by, for example, withholding information."
    "This is a very broad definition, no doubt designedly so. It requires reasonable interpretation and application to the circumstances of each particular case. It contains both subjective and objective elements: did the alleged victim actually feel humiliated, offended or intimidated by the impugned conduct, and was such conduct, viewed objectively, of a nature reasonably to humiliate, offend or intimidate? Where the impugned conduct consists of words, although truth will not always constitute a complete defence, an inquiry as to whether such words may or may not reasonably be true is obviously relevant. Likewise, an inquiry as to whether the speaker's words can reasonably be seen as a reference to the performance of duties and are not merely gratuitous comments will be germane. Personal characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity as well as the reasonableness of the sensitivities of the alleged victim, must also be weighed in considering both questions. Similarly, any previous history of relations between the alleged victim and the alleged offender may be relevant and, while a single injurious action may by itself be enough to constitute harassment, an otherwise apparently inoffensive comment may, with repetition, become a legitimate source of grievance.
    In the final analysis, the question as to whether any particular act or series of acts amounts to harassment is one of fact to be answered only after careful consideration of the above factors and an examination of all the surrounding circumstances."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922

    Keywords:

    breach; conduct; continuing breach; criteria; definition; difference; harassment; information note; interpretation; judicial review; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; purpose; qualifications; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; working relations; written rule;



  • Judgment 2549


    101st Session, 2006
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 10, 11 and 13

    Extract:

    The complainant, a Danish national, was employed by the ILO from 3 January 2002 to 2 January 2005. She had entered into a registered partnership with her same-sex partner. On taking up her functions, she submitted a Certificate of Registered Partnership drawn up in accordance with the Danish Act on registered partnership and asked to be granted dependency benefits, designating her partner as her spouse. Her request was rejected. The Office stated that it was "in a position to recognise same-sex marriages immediately where the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality recognises such marriages." It has in fact recently recognised such same-sex marriages where the national legislation defines same-sex marriages as spousal relationships.
    "The question is whether the broad interpretation of the term 'spouse' already given by the Office in the case of a marriage recognised by the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality should have been extended to unions between same-sex partners which are not expressly designated as marriages under the national law of the staff member concerned. The Tribunal feels that a purely nominalistic approach to this issue would be excessively formalistic and is inappropriate in view of the fact that the situation varies from one country to another and that great care must be taken not to treat officials placed in comparable situations unequally: it is not because a country has opted for legislation that admits same-sex unions while refusing to describe them as marriages that officials who are nationals of that State should necessarily be denied certain rights. As pointed out in Judgment 1715 [...], there may be situations in which the status of spouse can be recognised in the absence of a marriage, provided that the staff member concerned can show the precise provisions of local law on which he or she relies. It is therefore necessary to determine whether in the present case the provisions of Danish law enable the complainant and her partner to be considered as 'spouses' in the meaning of the applicable regulations."
    After having examined the provisions of the Danish Act on registered partnership, the Tribunal finds that "the Director-General was wrong [...] to refuse to recognise the status of spouse for the complainant's partner [and orders] the ILO [to] give full effect to this ruling by granting the complainant the benefits denied to her during the time of her employment".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1715

    Keywords:

    analogy; applicable law; burden of proof; complaint allowed; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; interpretation; judicial review; marital status; member state; nationality; official; provision; refusal; request by a party; right; same; same-sex marriage; social benefits; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2420


    98th Session, 2005
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The complainants' second plea is that the methodology applied by the General Assembly [to review salary levels] does not satisfy the requirements of stability, foreseeability and transparency established by the case law. [...] Given that the application of that methodology can yield results as different as those obtained, on the one hand, by the ICSC, and on the other, by the Fifth Committee and subsequently the General Assembly, one may legitimately query its foreseeability. However, it must be borne in mind that a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which was entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle."

    Keywords:

    adjustment; case law; icsc decision; interpretation; noblemaire principle; organisation's duties; rate; recommendation; salary; scale;



  • Judgment 2414


    98th Session, 2005
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2170 the Tribunal described the requirement of Staff Rule 12.1.5 that an annual performance report be established prior to the scheduled date of a salary increment as 'a formal one' which had to be complied with. It is important to explain why that was so. A staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service so that steps can be taken to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed. These are fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity. That is why it was said in Judgment 2170 that an organisation must 'conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that [its rules] will be followed'."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 12.1.5 of the ITU
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; criteria; due process; duty to inform; good faith; increase; increment; interpretation; organisation's duties; output; patere legem; performance report; respect for dignity; salary; satisfactory service; staff regulations and rules; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2362


    97th Session, 2004
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "By virtue of successive short-term contracts and extensions thereof, [the complainant's] service lasted for four years. The series of extensions and the grant of pension coverage and other benefits did not signify a change in her original status. Staff Rule 3.5(a) [...] cannot be invoked by her as proof that her appointment had been converted to fixed-term. While this provision ostensibly bestows on her 'the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment', it would be stretching the intent and signification of the provision to make the complainant a fixed-term official (see Judgment 1666). Had that been the purpose of the Rule, it would have explicitly so provided instead of stating that 'the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment [...] shall apply to [the official concerned]'. The complainant was recruited as a short-term official and remained one at all times."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 3.5(a) of the Rules Governing Conditions of Service of Short-Term Officials
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1666

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; commutation; contract; evidence; extension of contract; fixed-term; fringe benefits; fund membership; interpretation; official; period; provision; purpose; same; short-term; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; successive contracts; terms of appointment; unjspf;



  • Judgment 2358


    97th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal asserts categorically that, as a matter of law, the ambiguities must be resolved in the manner most favourable to staff members. That is simply an application of the general rule requiring that any ambiguous text should be construed against the interest of the person responsible for drafting it and in favour of the person upon whom it is imposed. (For a recent application of the rule, see Judgment 2290.)"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2290

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; enforcement; general principle; interpretation; organisation's interest; staff member's interest; written rule;

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


 
Last updated: 07.08.2020 ^ top