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: 180

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



  • Judgment 2357


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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "It was said in Judgments 1835, 1836 and 1837 that the application of Article 71(2)[regarding the conditions of award of an education allowance] 'is at the discretion of the President of the Office'. It is not strictly accurate to describe a decision as to the application of Article 71(2) as discretionary. The question whether a particular school or university corresponds to a 'child's educational stage' is essentially a question of fact, albeit one that may, in some circumstances, permit of a value judgment. However, because of the nature of that question, a decision under Article 71(2) is subject to limited review on the same grounds as a discretionary decision properly so called. Thus, it will be reviewed only for procedural error, mistake of fact or law, the drawing of a clearly mistaken conclusion or misuse of authority. In particular, this Tribunal will not substitute its view of the facts for that reached by the President."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 71(2) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1835, 1836, 1837

    Keywords:

    allowance; case law; condition; decision; discretion; education expenses; enforcement; executive head; grounds; interpretation; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; provision; same; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2315


    96th Session, 2004
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 22 and 23

    Extract:

    "There are two aspects to the rule against retroactivity. The first is a rule of interpretation which requires that a provision not be construed as having retroactive effect unless that is clearly intended. The second is a substantive rule of international civil service law which, as explained in Judgment 1589, prevents a retroactive change in the legal status of staff save in limited circumstances [...]. However, to state the rule in this way is not to expose what is meant by 'retroactive'. In general terms, a provision is retroactive if it effects some change in existing legal status, rights, liabilities or interests from a date prior to its proclamation, but not if it merely affects the procedures to be observed in the future with respect to such status, rights, liabilities or interests."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1589

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; case law; collective rights; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; consequence; date; definition; effect; exception; general principle; international civil service principles; interpretation; non-retroactivity; official; organisation's interest; procedure before the tribunal; provision; publication; purpose; right; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2290


    96th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "In case of doubt [on the meaning which may reasonably be given to the clause of a contract], it is accepted that, in accordance with the principle of good faith, ambiguous clauses should be interpreted to the detriment of the party which drafted the contract."

    Keywords:

    benefit of doubt; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; good faith; interpretation; law of contract; provision; written rule;



  • Judgment 2272


    96th Session, 2004
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    A rule, "approved by the Administrative Council, [cannot] be called into question by the President. It is true that, when deciding to promote or not to promote a permanent employee, the President enjoys discretionary authority, subject to the Tribunal┐s limited power of review. Within the bounds of this limited power of review, however, the Tribunal considers whether decisions referred to it are not flawed by abuse of authority or error of law. In the present case, the complainant argues rightly that by refusing to apply to his case a rule which had been approved by the Administrative Council, despite the fact that he met the necessary requirements, the President committed an error of law and abused his authority."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; discretion; enforcement; executive body; executive head; interpretation; judicial review; limits; misuse of authority; promotion; refusal; repeal; written rule;



  • Judgment 2263


    95th Session, 2003
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The question to be resolved is that of whether, for the purposes of service order No. 99 [which defines the conditions and formalities governing the granting of a personal promotion], the period in excess of the 12-month maximum duration stipulated for short-term contracts should be taken into account in calculating the 18 years of continuous service. The answer is necessarily affirmative. [...] Once [the first 12-month period] had elapsed, the complainant must be considered to have been in service [...], even in the absence of a provision to that effect and taking into account the contracts he was granted thereafter. Regarding the [one month] break in service which occurred [subsequently], it is necessary to establish whether this prevented the complainant from completing the 18 years of continuous service [...] The Tribunal considers that it did not. The evidence on file, and particularly an affidavit produced by the complainant as an annex to his written submissions, shows that the break imposed on the complainant was justified only by the fact that he was employed under short-term contracts. since the Tribunal has determined that the complainant must be deemed to have been in service from 17 November 1982 onwards, the break in question must be viewed as a period of leave."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: SERVICE ORDER No. 99

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; continuance of operations; contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; interpretation; leave; no provision; personal promotion; promotion; reckoning; seniority; short-term; successive contracts; unpaid leave; validation of service;



  • Judgment 2258


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Communications from an organisation to a staff member must be interpreted according to the meaning that their addressee can reasonably ascribe to them. Since it owes a duty of care to its employees, an administration which intends to take a compulsory decision binding the person concerned must express its decision clearly so as to remove from its action any potentially harmful ambiguity."

    Keywords:

    binding character; decision; duty of care; effect; injury; interpretation; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 2232


    95th Session, 2003
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability, arguing that the decision impugned before the Tribunal is not an administrative decision, but essentially a political one. The Tribunal holds that "the complainant was an international civil servant who was entitled to appeal to the Tribunal against a decision to terminate his appointment. That decision must be viewed as an administrative decision, even though it was taken by the Conference of the States parties."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision; executive body; executive head; grounds; iloat; interpretation; member state; official; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; termination of employment;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director- General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. The Organisation raises an objection to receivability, arguing that the complainant was not a staff member. "The defendant [...] considers that since the particular case of the Director-General of the Organisation was not expressly provided for in the texts on which the Tribunal's jurisdiction is based, an express provision recognising its jurisdiction would have been necessary. It points out that [another international organisation] (UNESCO), having realised that it had no statutory provision nor any contractual stipulation attributing jurisdiction in the event of a dispute involving its Director-General, decided in 1999 to include such a clause in the contract it signed with him. whilst the Tribunal does not deny that UNESCO thereby clarified difficulties which were liable to arise, it does not view that as authority for the reverse proposition that contracts containing no such clause, entered into by other organisations with their respective chief administrative officers, must be deemed to exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; complaint allowed; contract; decision; exception; executive head; grounds; interpretation; no provision; organisation; provision; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment; written rule;



  • Judgment 2227


    95th Session, 2003
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant was informed by a letter of 22 December 1999 that the administration reserved the right to approve the photocopying and distribution of circulars issued by staff representatives. "The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 911 [...], that a staff association enjoys broad freedom of speech and the right to take to task the administration of the organisation whose employees it represents, but that like any other freedom such freedom has its bounds. thus any action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, and likewise gross abuse of freedom of speech, are inadmissible. But the prevention of such abuse cannot give the administration a power of prior censorship over the communication of written information produced by the groups and associations concerned. Herein lies the problem in this case: the Office considers it has a general right to authorise, which it maintains it uses only with moderation, but the limits of such authorisation are by no means clear. The Tribunal cannot set aside a general decision on the grounds that it does not offer the guarantees that are in any case available to staff members on the basis of the general principles of international civil service law, as established and interpreted by the Tribunal and other international administrative tribunals. These principles confine the administration's scope of action to cases where there is gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives. And it is in the light of these principles that the letter of 22 December 1999 [...] should be interpreted. a refusal to grant an authorisation may be regarded as lawful only if it complies with the above principles."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 911

    Keywords:

    acceptance; case law; collective rights; exception; freedom of speech; general decision; general principle; iloat; international civil service principles; interpretation; judicial review; limits; official; organisation; outside activity; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; tribunal;



  • Judgment 2218


    95th Session, 2003
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Organization argues that the complainant submitted new "conclusions" to the Tribunal, compared to those he had put forward in his internal appeal [...]. In fact, the complainant's pleas, whether in the internal appeal or before the Tribunal, consist in challenging the decision taken regarding his grade and in obtaining a position in the normal salary scale at the level closest to the salary he had been receiving in the previous system. His request to be placed at a graded level within the new scale instead of one altogether outside the scale cannot properly be considered as going beyond the claims he had submitted in the internal appeals proceedings".

    Keywords:

    claim; complainant; complaint; decision; identical claims; iloat; internal appeal; interpretation; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; salary; scale;



  • Judgment 2213


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6(a)

    Extract:

    The Tribunal had dismissed the complaint by which the complainant impugned the non-renewal of his appointment. In his application for review of that judgment, he submits that a post intended for him had been mentioned in the draft programme and budget and that, since the document had been approved as it stood by the General Conference, this implied his appointment to the post at issue. "The question arises as to whether such an argument affords grounds for review. It is not necessary to answer that question, considering that the fact does not appear to be decisive, since the adoption of a budget could [...] not be interpreted as a decision to make an appointment."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; admissible grounds for review; application for review; appointment; assignment; consequence; contract; decision; executive body; inadmissible grounds for review; interpretation; non-renewal of contract; post;



  • Judgment 2193


    94th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant, who had entered into a civil solidarity contract (pacte civil de solidaritÚ, hereinafter 'pacs') with his male partner, informed the administration that his partner was entirely dependant on him. The organisation replied that, under the rules currently applicable within the United Nations system, the pacs was not recognised as a formal marriage that could create an entitlement to any benefits or allowances for a dependent spouse. The Tribunal states that "neither the letter nor the spirit of the relevant texts cited by the parties, nor indeed the case law, enable partners bound by a pacs to be considered as having the status of spouses within the meaning of Staff Rule 103.9."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 103.9

    Keywords:

    applicable law; case law; contract; dependant; domestic law; family allowance; interpretation; marital status; organisation's duties; same-sex marriage;



  • Judgment 2086


    92nd Session, 2002
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    In order to be awarded a personal promotion the complainant must have completed 18 years of continuous service under a fixed-term or permanent contract. "The [organisation] is arguing that [...] in determining whether the complainant fulfilled [such a] requirement [...] reference must be made to clauses of the contracts which came into force unopposed, [including] short-term contracts [...] The approach is too rigid [...] The issue was [not] one of applying or interpreting the complainant's early appointments [...] It is a matter of applying a rule which is currently in force and which concerns the legal nature of former contractual relationships between the parties. In other words, in the light of the current rule, what type of appointment did the early contracts establish? It should be noted that the name they were given will not necessarily express the actual relationship".

    Keywords:

    applicable law; condition; contract; criteria; definition; effective date; enforcement; fixed-term; interpretation; permanent appointment; personal promotion; provision; reckoning; short-term; working hours;



  • Judgment 2017


    90th Session, 2001
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "An organisation must interpret the statements of a staff member in good faith and [...] as part of its duty to spare the staff member unnecessary injury, it may also be called upon to provide procedural guidance and help to put right a mistake (see Judgment 1734, [...] under 3(g))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; good faith; injury; interpretation; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's interest; statement of intent;



  • Judgment 2006


    90th Session, 2001
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant contends that based on a recently published circular, his promotion should have been made retroactive to the date he took up his new duties. "However, to give retroactive effect to [the] circular would not be possible since according to customary methods of interpretation any action prescribed in a text is deemed to be of immediate effect. There is no presumption of retroactive effect.' (Judgment 742 [...]). Indeed, there can be no retroactive application of the rights sought by the complainant, and his status results only from the publication of the circular in question. The charge of arbitrariness would be tenable if there were no basis for applying the circular to the case of the complainant, but, as shown above, the scope of the text explicitly covered his situation."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 742

    Keywords:

    bias; date; effective date; general principle; interpretation; non-retroactivity; promotion; publication; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 1996


    89th Session, 2000
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6 & 7

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 1821 the Tribunal recalled that where a methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure (see Judgment 1682 [...]). [...] However, departure from the index given as an orientation in the Staff Regulations requires more than just a statement of proper reasons. In order to protect staff against arbitrariness, the criteria relied on to deviate from the orientation suggested by the external index must be objective, adequate and known to the staff (see Judgment 1912, under 15)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1682, 1821, 1912

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; breach; burden of proof; complaint allowed; criteria; duty to substantiate decision; interpretation; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1820


    86th Session, 1999
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Where a rule is cast in more than one official language and no one version is to prevail, all versions shall be deemed to bear the same meaning and the right construction shall be the one that respects the draftsman's intent and best reconciles them". The Tribunal cites the case law.

    Keywords:

    authentic version; case law; interpretation; purpose; subsidiary; written rule;



  • Judgment 1814


    86th Session, 1999
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 and 8

    Extract:

    The Joint Committee for disputes dealt with the "complaint" by correspondence. The Tribunal considers that the texts provide "that the Committee shall meet', and it meets only if all the full members, or in their absence the alternate members, are present'. On that score alone there was breach of due process and the impugned decision cannot stand."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; condition; due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; interpretation; procedural flaw; report;



  • Judgment 1790


    86th Session, 1999
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant says that the Organisation has paid him a termination indemnity reckoned on the strength of only six years' service though he was on its staff for over twelve years. The defendant's answer is that according to the Staff Regulations the complainant had only six years' unbroken service. The Tribunal considers that "the defendant has misread its own rules. For the purpose of reckoning the total period of unbroken service they do not, as it makes out, distinguish between a year served as a fellow' and a year served as a staff member or auxiliary."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; continuance of operations; decision quashed; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; terminal entitlements;



  • Judgment 1755


    85th Session, 1998
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "[A]ny ambiguity in the Regulations the [Organisation] has issued should be construed contra proferentem and in favour of the staff."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; interpretation; organisation's interest; pension; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 1720


    84th Session, 1998
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "A strong line of precedent has it that time limits, though necessary in law, are not supposed to set traps: they are to be applied with the good faith that must govern relations between an international organisation and its staff."

    Keywords:

    good faith; internal appeal; interpretation; procedure before the tribunal; time limit; written rule;

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


 
Last updated: 13.08.2020 ^ top