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

Language of rule (238,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Language of rule
Total judgments found: 11

  • Judgment 2826


    107th Session, 2009
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "There was nothing to preclude the complainant from raising the argument based on the French text of the Staff Regulations in his first complaint. He was then armed with the recommendation and reasons of the Appeal Board, both of which were based on the English text of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. Further, as he was then seeking recognition of his same-sex partner as a dependent spouse, it was for him to advance argument as to why that course should be taken rather than the more limited course recommended by the Appeal Board. Moreover, the grounds on which the Tribunal may review its judgments are limited to «failure to take account of some essential fact, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the later discovery of some essential fact that the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings» (see Judgment 1252 and also Judgments 442, 555 and 649). The argument based on the French text is, in essence, an argument that the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules as barring recognition of the complainant's partner as his dependent spouse. That is not an admissible ground for the review of a judgment (see Judgment 2029). Nor is it a ground for review that, on 3 September 2007 and after Judgment 2643 was delivered, the complainant married his partner in British Columbia in accordance with the law of Canada. It would entirely defeat the principles of finality and res judicata if subsequent facts could be taken into account on an application for review of a judgment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 555, 649, 1252, 2029, 2643

    Keywords:

    application for review; dependant; finality of judgment; inadmissible grounds for review; language of rule; marital status; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata; same-sex marriage;



  • Judgment 2598


    102nd Session, 2007
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    "Having studied the submissions the Tribunal notes that, in the internal appeal he filed on 30 September [...], the complainant expressly reserved the right to set out his position on the receivability of his appeal in the light of any explanations the Administration might supply in support of its reply; that in that reply the Organization dealt at length with the receivability of the internal appeal; that in his letter of 20 October [...] the complainant asked to be allowed to submit a rejoinder to the Organization's reply and to have the said reply, which was in English, translated into French to enable him to 'actually find out what it said'; and that the Appeal Board wrote its report four days after this request on which it had not acted.

    In view of the above-mentioned circumstances the Tribunal considers that, as the receivability of the appeal was disputed in the Organization's reply, respect for the principle of due process and the right to be heard required that the complainant be afforded an opportunity to present his point of view.

    The Tribunal holds that, although the Appeal Board was not obliged to accede to the complainant's request concerning translation of the Organization's reply, it ought to have informed the complainant so that he could, by his own means, 'actually find out' what the reply said and, if necessary, submit a rejoinder within a reasonable period of time, as he wished to do.

    The Tribunal considers that, as a result, the failure to observe the principle of due process deprived the complainant of his right to be heard on the essential issue of the receivability of his appeal."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; decision quashed; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; language of rule; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; reply; report; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 2227


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

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Appeals Committee's report on the complainant's case was drafted in german. He expresses the view that in future its reports should be drafted in one of the official languages of the Tribunal, i. e. in either english or french. "The Tribunal recognises the difficulties arising from the translation of documents drafted in german [...] Nevertheless, it must remind the parties, which are aware of the fact, that its rules admit only two working languages - english and french - but that the [organisation] is perfectly entitled, as far as its own purposes are concerned, to use any of its three working languages, including german."

    Keywords:

    iloat; iloat statute; internal appeals body; language of rule; organisation; report; right;



  • Judgment 1450


    79th Session, 1995
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The decision is authoritative in the three official versions - English, French and German [...]. The EPO says that the German was the original in the preparatory work. But neither that nor the drafting of the complainants' contracts in German confers any greater authority on that version. In law there is but one decision, and the interpretation of it, which must be objective, must match its terms and purpose."

    Keywords:

    authentic version; decision; interpretation; language of rule; purpose; written rule;



  • Judgment 1299


    75th Session, 1993
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4 and 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal holds that the wording of UNESCO Staff Rule 105.4(a) "is not clear enough to allow of a ruling and that comparison between the English and French versions fails to resolve the issue. [...] The obscurity of the text prompts reference both to the 'preparatory work' on the rule and to the organization's practice in applying it."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 105.4(A)

    Keywords:

    enforcement; interpretation; language of rule; practice; staff regulations and rules; written rule;



  • Judgment 1099


    71st Session, 1991
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant claims the expatriation allowance provided under Article 72 of the EPO Service Regulations for officials who, at the time of their appointment, have not been continuously resident in their duty station for the preceding three years. As he does not meet that requirement, he wants the time he spent in the Federal Republic of Germany to be discounted and he relies on the German wording of the provision, which refers to the official's being "permanently established" rather than "resident" at the duty station as in the English and French versions. The English and French versions being quite explicit, the German version must be interpreted in a way that reconciles all three. (Vide Judgment 926.)

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 72 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 926

    Keywords:

    condition; criteria; interpretation; language of rule; nationality; non-resident allowance; residence; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1032


    69th Session, 1990
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "The complainant points out inconsistencies between the English, French and German texts of [Article 12(1) of the EPO Pension Scheme Regulations and Rule 12.1/1(i)(b) of the Implementing Rules]. The three language versions, being equally authentic, shall be deemed to bear the same meaning. Where there are inconsistencies the Tribunal will apply the construction which, having regard to the purpose of the provisions, best reconciles the various versions."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 12(1) OF THE EPO PENSION SCHEME REGULATIONS; RULE 12.1/1(I)(B) OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES

    Keywords:

    authentic version; criteria; difference; interpretation; language of rule; purpose; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 926


    65th Session, 1988
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "It is plain from the text [of Article 72 of the Service Regulations] that the allowance is to be refused to an employee who is a citizen of the country where he is stationed unless at the time of appointment he has been continuously resident in another country for at least ten years. That is indeed the purport of the English and French texts, which are clear: the terms 'résident' and 'résidaient' do not necessarily connote permanent or established residence. The English and French versions being explicit, the German is to be interpreted in a way that reconciles all three; and in its English and French versions 72[3] requires that a citizen of the Federal Republic serving at Munich shall be paid the allowance only if at the time of appointment he has been 'continuously resident for at least 10 years' outside the Federal Republic."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 72 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    difference; duty station; interpretation; language of rule; nationality; non-resident allowance; residence;



  • Judgment 853


    63rd Session, 1987
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "According to the general rules of construction, all language versions of a text shall be deemed to bear the same meaning save that, where comparison reveals a point of disagreement, the construction that prevails shall be the one that, with due regard to the purpose of the law-maker, best reconciles the various versions."

    Keywords:

    authentic version; general principle; interpretation; language of rule; provision; purpose; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 537


    49th Session, 1982
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The Tribunal interpreted the French and English versions of the relevant rule according to the usual methods. It found that the latter had not been modified when the rules were amended, that the corresponding old rule refers to a section which in no way precludes the accumulation of termination payments and disability benefits. The Tribunal took the view that it was the French text of the rule which should be applied, not the English text.

    Keywords:

    accumulation; disability benefit; interpretation; language of rule; terminal entitlements;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "Both the French and the English are authentic. In such circumstances the Tribunal will interpret the texts according to the usual methods. This approach may of course put the complainant in an awkward position. A staff member may act on an explicit provision and later discover it to be erroneous. This may be an important consideration of equity, but it cannot be maintained on that account that it is for each staff member to choose the language version which suits him best."

    Keywords:

    authentic version; competence of tribunal; interpretation; language of rule;



  • Judgment 307


    38th Session, 1977
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4(D)

    Extract:

    "Paragraph 5 [of Article II] in the English text refers to non-observance of 'the terms of appointment', but in this context the word 'appointment' is not in the opinion of the Tribunal to be restricted to the narrow sense of a formal appointment. It must be treated as embracing a contract to make an appointment and in this sense it is consistent with the French text, 'contrat d'engagement'."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; contract; iloat statute; interpretation; language of rule; terms of appointment;


 
Last updated: 23.10.2020 ^ top