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

Dependent child (336, 337, 338, 339, 340,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Dependent child
Total judgments found: 21

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4119


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the President of the Office to amend the wording of a circular in respect of the age limit for the payment of a dependants’ allowance.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    allowance; complaint dismissed; decision quashed; dependent child; education expenses; general decision;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; dependent child; education expenses;



  • Judgment 3533


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, who are married and have children, contest the decision to pay only to one of them at a time the child supplement to the expatriation allowance.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    allowance; complaint allowed; dependent child; joinder;



  • Judgment 3532


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of her home loan supplement in respect of her dependent children.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    allowance; complaint allowed; dependent child;



  • Judgment 3523


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discontinue the payment of the education allowance for her son.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    allowance; complaint dismissed; dependent child; education expenses; permanent appointment;



  • Judgment 3508


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s alleged failure to take an express decision on his claim for the reimbursement of the travel expenses that he incurred in respect of his children upon leaving the service of the EPO.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; delay; dependent child; travel expenses;



  • Judgment 3310


    117th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant asks for the recalculation of an education allowance by reference to the dependent handicapped child allowance (instead of on the basis of the dependent child allowance).

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    allowance; complaint dismissed; dependent child; education expenses; handicapped person;



  • Judgment 3205


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to increase the parental contribution for the use of Office crèches.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; dependent child;



  • Judgment 2847


    107th Session, 2009
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The purpose of the family allowances which Eurocontrol pays to officials with dependent children is to contribute financially towards these children's maintenance, and the aim of the rule laid down in [Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations], according to which the amount of these allowances must be reduced by the amount of allowances of the same kind paid from other sources, such as family allowances paid by a national authority, is to prevent two benefits from being granted concurrently for the same children, since this would plainly result in the unlawful enrichment of the recipient family.
    In this regard, the fact that the [national authority] does not make payments to the official himself, but to his spouse (or, as in this case, his partner), is of course immaterial. If the two benefits in question are being paid for the maintenance of the same children, they cannot be drawn simultaneously by the parents without contravening the very purpose of this rule against concurrent benefits."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency

    Keywords:

    accumulation; amount; breach; dependent child; domestic law; family allowance; marital status; parent; purpose; rate; staff regulations and rules; unjust enrichment; written rule;

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant objects to the fact that the Agency has recovered the amount overpaid from the outset, i.e. over a five-year period, whereas in the opposite case, when the Agency makes a mistake to the detriment of an official, it usually benefits from rules of prescription which enable it greatly to reduce the amounts reimbursed.
    "[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, a claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought - even in the absence of any provision in writing to this effect - in reasonable time (see Judgments 53, under 4, and 2565, under 7(c)). However [...] the five-year period concerned by the recovery of the overpayment [...] cannot be regarded in this case as an unreasonable length of time, particularly because the disputed reimbursement arises from concealment on the part of the complainant and because Eurocontrol did not fail to take the necessary steps to recover the sums in question."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 2565

    Keywords:

    accumulation; amount; breach; case law; dependent child; difference; domestic law; family allowance; injury; limits; misrepresentation; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; period; rate; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time bar;

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant had to reimburse the full amount overpaid.
    "The evidence on file shows that the complainant deliberately refrained from declaring to Eurocontrol the family allowances drawn by his partner, although he had been duly informed that, in the Agency's view, they should be deducted from those he was receiving. While it was open to the complainant to challenge - if necessary before the Tribunal - any deductions made by the Agency in calculating the payments, he could not choose of his own accord to evade his duty of disclosure. He must therefore be deemed to have been aware of the unlawfulness of the disputed payments, which was indeed sufficiently obvious for it to be concluded that he could not have been unaware of it."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency

    Keywords:

    accumulation; amount; breach; dependent child; domestic law; family allowance; flaw; misrepresentation; payment; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2637


    103rd Session, 2007
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "So far as concerns the education grant, the argument of discrimination against persons who are the children of international civil servants must [...] be rejected. [The Tribunal considers that] the purpose of the grant is not to confer a financial benefit but to enable a child of a staff member to be educated in the mother tongue of his or her parent and, ordinarily, that will be the language of the country with which the staff member has the closest connection."

    Keywords:

    allowance; breach; dependent child; education expenses; equal treatment; nationality; official; parent; place of origin; purpose;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "[I]t is convenient to note the different but related purposes of home leave and education grant. The purpose of home leave is not to confer a financial benefit or to make a monetary concession (see Judgment 937). Rather, as pointed out in Judgment 2389, it is 'to enable staff members who, owing to their work, spend a number of years away from the country with which they have the closest personal or material ties to return there in order to maintain those connections'. Similarly, the purpose of the education grant is made explicit by UN Staff Regulation 3.2(c), namely, to provide for a staff member 'serving in a country whose language is different from his or her own and who is obliged to pay tuition for the teaching of the mother tongue to a dependent child attending a local school in which the instruction is given in a language other than his or her own'."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 937, 2389

    Keywords:

    allowance; dependent child; difference; duty station; education expenses; home leave; nationality; official; organisation's interest; payment; period; place of origin; purpose; rule of another organisation;



  • Judgment 2389


    98th Session, 2005
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The home country "is not necessarily that of the staff member's nationality. It could be the country with which he has the closest connection outside the country in which he is employed (see Judgment 1985, under 9), for instance the home country of his wife or of children whom he may have adopted or taken in but who he believes should keep up their connections with their native environment. Thus, according to Staff Rule 105.3, paragraph 4c, the Director General, in exceptional circumstances, may authorise a staff member to take home leave in a country other than the country of his nationality, provided that the latter can show that he maintained his normal residence in that other country for a prolonged period preceding his appointment, that he continues to have close family or personal ties in that country and that his taking home leave there would not be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: UPU Staff Regulation 5.3 and Staff Rule 105.3, paragraph 4c
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1985

    Keywords:

    adoption; appointment; burden of proof; condition; definition; dependent child; difference; duty station; exception; executive head; family relationship; home leave; nationality; official travel; period; place of origin; residence; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1866


    87th Session, 1999
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant considers that he is discriminated against in comparison with his colleagues who live in towns where the organisation subsidises creche places. "The principle of equality of treatment only applies between staff members in a similar situation. In the material case, staff members whose place of residence is Munich or The Hague, where there are subsidised creches, benefit from the same treatment. But staff members, such as the complainant, who decide to reside in another location and do not wish to place their child in these subsidised creches, are not in a similar situation."

    Keywords:

    criteria; dependent child; difference; equal treatment; general principle; residence; social benefits;



  • Judgment 1814


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

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "Though the Director General does have discretion [as to who may be considered as a dependent child], the staff member must be made aware of any criteria he is applying." (See Judgment 1204.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204

    Keywords:

    criteria; dependant; dependent child; discretion; duty to inform; executive head; family allowance; limits; organisation's duties; parent;



  • Judgment 1176


    73rd Session, 1992
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "Treating a person as a dependent child of the staff member in accordance with [the material provisions] confers health insurance coverage ipso facto on that person. [...] Eurocontrol must consider the consequences its decision [to treat someone as a dependent child] will have for insurance coverage."

    Keywords:

    dependant; dependent child; health insurance; illness; insurance; medical expenses; organisation's duties;

    Considerations 11 and 13

    Extract:

    Eurocontrol asked the complainant to supply proof that the dependant for whom he was seeking health insurance had no means of gaining cover for sickness under another public health scheme in keeping with Article 2(2) of Rule No. 10 of the Staff Regulations. "But since what is required is disproof - viz. proof that there is no coverage under this or that scheme - Eurocontrol may not consistently lay the burden on the insured member. If it did so, there would be a danger of making the rule unworkable. A fortiori it may not, after duly determining on all the material evidence at its disposal that someone may be treated as a dependent child, raise the question of possible coverage by another public scheme whenever the insured member happens to claim refund or to seek prior authorisation of expenditure."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 2(2) of Rule no. 10 of the Staff Regulations

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; dependant; dependent child; evidence; health insurance; illness; insurance; medical expenses; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 952


    66th Session, 1989
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    WHO Manual provision II.2.430.2 was amended so as to restrict the possibility of having adopted blood relatives treated as dependants. The complainant submits that the amendment infringed an acquired right. The Tribunal held that "the right which the amendment removed cannot be deemed to have constituted any essential part of the complainant's terms of appointment, and the allegation of breach of an acquired right is therefore unsound."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PROVISION II.2.430.2

    Keywords:

    acquired right; adoption; amendment to the rules; dependant; dependent child; family relationship; provision; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 743


    58th Session, 1986
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "In the event of divorce the duty to maintain and bring up the child falls mainly on the parent who is granted custody, the other having only a right of supervision and a duty to make some financial contribution. Thus the spouse who is granted custody should ordinarily be deemed to bear actual and lasting responsibility for the child and should be entitled to payment of the child allowance."

    Keywords:

    definition; dependent child; education expenses; family allowance; parents separated;



  • Judgment 422


    45th Session, 1980
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks to have his step-daughter recognised as his dependant on the basis of a statutory provision which stipulates that where both parents are staff members, the children shall be recognised as the dependants of that parent holding the higher level post. Any child who is "de facto fully dependent upon a staff member" may be recognised as dependent. The Director-General believed that so long as the wife was a staff member in receipt of child allowance, the step-child was partly dependent on her. This decision is not tainted by any flaw. The complaint is dismissed.

    Keywords:

    condition; dependant; dependent child;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    At issue is whether or not a child was de facto fully dependent on the complainant. Such a matter falls within the discretionary authority of the Director-General, since the answer depends not on the facts simpliciter but on an appreciation of the facts.

    Keywords:

    dependant; dependent child; discretion;



  • Judgment 322


    39th Session, 1977
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    For reasons of a personal nature, the complainant waited six years before informing the organisation of the birth of an illegitimate child. He claimed retroactive payment of allowances from the date of the birth. The Tribunal finds that he has lost his right to retroactive payment, since he did not act within a reasonable period of time. To claim a lump-sum payment, after waiting several years, is to disregard the purpose of the provisions on family allowance.

    Keywords:

    dependent child; family allowance; non-retroactivity; purpose; reasonable time; request by a party; time limit;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "It is immaterial that according to [the relevant provision] an official may not waive his right to remuneration. [...] It is through his own delay that he may lose his right to family allowance, and not because of any express or implied waiver on his part."

    Keywords:

    dependent child; family allowance; reasonable time; request by a party; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 270


    36th Session, 1976
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    If the parents are separated, "payment of [the higher school]allowance is warranted where the child attends school away from the place of residence of the parent with whom he normally lives [...] if [...] the child attends school at the place of residence of the parent who has custody of him, that is a normal situation and there is no reason to pay the allowance at the higher rate. It is immaterial that the parents are separated and that, though living with his mother, the child is a dependant of the father. It is true that in the present case the child's maintenance is in general more costly to the father than it would be if father and son were living together. But that is a consequence not of the choice of school but of the separation of the parents, and the organisation cannot be held liable therefor."

    Keywords:

    allowance; amount; condition; dependent child; education expenses; parents separated; rate; residence;



  • Judgment 219


    31st Session, 1973
    International Patent Institute
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The "provision [...] is applicable only to a staff member who has dependent children [...] It follows that the complainant is not entitled to an education allowance since he has no dependent children [...] The fact that he has not himself incurred the educational expenses of his children is a further reason why [the provision] is inapplicable to his case."

    Keywords:

    allowance; condition; dependent child; education expenses; right;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Maintenance, like dependence, can be defined in different ways. While it can be argued that a contribution to maintenance is a form of maintenance, it can also be claimed that only complete maintenance can truly be called maintenance." The meaning of the applicable texts has not been clearly stated in the new Staff Regulations.

    Keywords:

    criteria; dependant; dependent child; interpretation; parents separated;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Had it been intended that an official ordered to pay a maintenance allowance should be entitled to receive child allowances, special provisions would have been included in the regulations to deal with such cases "either by giving the Director-General discretionary power to determine the amount of the allowance in each case on its merits, or by making the amount of the child allowance dependent on the amount of the maintenance allowance; at the very least provision would have been made for the payment of the child allowance to the parent having custody."

    Keywords:

    dependent child; family allowance; parents separated;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Under the former as well as the present material rules, "a child is the dependant of the person who actually maintains him. In the case at issue the word 'actually', which means 'really', as opposed to 'theoretically', 'apparently' or 'illusorily', is not in question. The parties do not agree, however, as to the interpretation of the word 'maintain'."

    Keywords:

    definition; dependent child;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant not only does not have custody of the children, but he makes a financial contribution which is probably smaller than that made by their mother, and therefore does not actually maintain his children according to the strict interpretation of the term adopted [...] His claim for the payment of child allowances therefore fails."

    Keywords:

    condition; dependent child; family allowance; parents separated; right;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Vide Judgment 216, consideration 2.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 216

    Keywords:

    allowance; condition; dependent child; family allowance; parents separated;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top