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

Retirement (386, 387, 388,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Retirement
Total judgments found: 61

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

  • Judgment 4259


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    age limit; complaint allowed; decision quashed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;



  • Judgment 4254


    129th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    age limit; complaint allowed; decision quashed; retirement; retirement age;



  • Judgment 4089


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [I]t was open to the Director General to view the complainant’s conduct giving rise to and the subsequent conduct in relation to the judgment debt as falling short of the standards demanded of international civil servants. Accordingly, and subject to the various legal arguments of the complainant, it was open to the Director General to conclude it was not in the interests of the Agency to extend the complainant’s appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.

    Keywords:

    age limit; conduct; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; retirement; staff member's duties;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal has said of the power to extend an appointment beyond retirement age (in relation to the IAEA) that “the decision whether or not to grant [such] an extension to any particular staff member is peculiarly a matter for the exercise of the Director General’s discretion. The Tribunal will only interfere with such exercise on very limited grounds” (see Judgment 2377, consideration 4) and, in the context of another organisation, that “[s]ince the career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, any such prolongation is, by definition, an exceptional measure” (see Judgment 3285, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3285

    Keywords:

    age limit; competence of tribunal; discretion; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; judicial review; retirement;

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    [T]he case law of the Tribunal establishes that “[e]ven though colleagues of the complainant’s thought him suitable and recommended extending his appointment, the decision was not theirs to make” (see Judgment 1038, consideration 4). While those observations concerned the extension of an appointment (without an impending retirement), they are apt to apply in a case such as the present.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1038

    Keywords:

    age limit; analogy; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    age limit; complaint dismissed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;



  • Judgment 4016


    126th Session, 2018
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; contract; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    The complaint is unfounded on the merits. Paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the GCE does not violate the general principle of non-discrimination. The Tribunal accepts that air traffic controllers are in a different situation than other servants subject to the GCE (their work situation is also different from that of pilots). The different treatment for this category of servants and, specifically, the lower retirement age, which was 55 at the relevant time, is justified by the specificity of their work and the contested provision is not unreasonable or unjustified, and therefore is not discriminatory. It must be taken into account that: (a) the ordinary activity of air traffic controllers is particularly stressful and mentally demanding, they are also subject to difficult working conditions and to shift work; (b) the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre operates in a complex air space with a high traffic; and (c) possibly, in addition, a low retirement age enables Eurocontrol to recruit air traffic controllers more readily over time. The question of non-discrimination and that of a proper evaluation of the specific nature of the work in question, and therefore of its exigencies, are linked. In this evaluation, which is scientifically based, Eurocontrol’s evaluations should be accepted unless they are shown to be unreliable having regard to current scientific knowledge. In the present case, for the reasons considered above, the evaluations on which the provision in question is based fall within the range of acceptability. [...]
    The establishment of a “normal” retirement age for a category of officials is a common rule in international organisations and in national laws. The fact that different rules based on the same or on different criteria (e.g. criteria referring to “a case-by-case basis” or mixed criteria) are established, does not undermine the conclusion that a rule that falls within the range of acceptability and reliability is not unlawful.

    Keywords:

    equal treatment; retirement;



  • Judgment 3970


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to prolong his service beyond the mandatory retirement age.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    Neither of the grounds underlying the decisions of the President of the Office can be accepted as a legitimate justification for the rejection of the complainant’s request for his service to be prolonged. This rejection was therefore tainted by an obvious error of judgement.
    The Tribunal notes that this flaw is particularly unacceptable given that the Selection Committee had issued a proposal favourable to the complainant’s request. That proposal was based on sound reasoning and emphasised, in addition to the complainant’s profound competence, the service’s interest in retaining him in view of the particular need of the boards of appeal for expertise in his specific field. Considering that proposal, the President ought to have at least provided adequate justification for his own position.

    Keywords:

    age limit; extension beyond retirement age; grounds; retirement;



  • Judgment 3939


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    age limit; complaint dismissed; retirement;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has already emphasised, it is in the interests of an international organisation to ensure that the trade unions or associations representing its staff operate in good conditions (see Judgment 496, under 17). Hence, in order to determine whether retaining an official in service beyond the age of retirement is in the organisation’s interests, it is necessary to take account of any staff representative work carried out by the person in question (see, with respect to a similar case, Judgment 3521, under 1 to 3 and 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 496, 3521

    Keywords:

    age limit; equal treatment; organisation's interest; retirement; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;



  • Judgment 3934


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; retirement;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    It should be borne in mind that [...] an extension beyond the statutory retirement age, which is an exceptional measure over which the Director-General exercises broad discretion, may be granted only if, in the words of Staff Regulation 9.5, the latter “considers it to be in the interest of the Organization”.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 9.5

    Keywords:

    age limit; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;



  • Judgment 3918


    125th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.

    Considerations 3 & 4

    Extract:

    The relief [the complainant] seeks is:
    “(a) The cancellation of his reassignment process as based on discrimination, non[-]application of guidelines and incomplete and biased review of the facts;
    [...]
    (c) His immediate rein[statement] to a position suited to his qualifications and experience until his retirement in 2017 [and the payment of all entitlements during that time];"
    [...]
    The first point to be made is that this judgment of the Tribunal is being given after the date on which the complainant would have retired from WHO. Accordingly, there would be no utility in making orders to the same effect of the proposed orders in (a) and (c) [...].

    Keywords:

    claim; reinstatement; retirement;



  • Judgment 3902


    125th Session, 2018
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay him the indemnity due in the event of the closure of the CDE.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; complaint dismissed; permanent appointment; retirement;



  • Judgment 3884


    124th Session, 2017
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; retirement;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that a decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of an organisation exercises wide discretion. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if the decision was taken without authority, if a rule of form or procedure was breached, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1143, under 3, 2845, under 5, 3285, under 10, or 3765, under 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1143, 2845, 3285, 3765

    Keywords:

    discretion; retirement;



  • Judgment 3765


    123rd Session, 2017
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    According to well-settled case law, a decision to extend an appointment beyond the statutory retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of an organisation exercises a wide power of discretion. This measure is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter will interfere with such a decision only if it was taken without authority, if a rule of form or procedure was breached, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1143, under 3, and 3285, under 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1143, 3285

    Keywords:

    age limit; retirement;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    age limit; complaint dismissed; retirement;



  • Judgment 3680


    122nd Session, 2016
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend her contract beyond retirement age.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; duress; non-renewal of contract; retirement;



  • Judgment 3546


    120th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the principle of extending the active service of a staff member beyond the age of 65 and the terms thereof.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    age limit; complaint allowed; decision quashed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "In the version in force at the time of those decisions, Article 11.3 of the Staff Regulations, which stipulated that an official must retire on the last day of the month in which he or she reached the age of 60 or 62, depending on when he or she was appointed, stated that “[i]n special cases the Director-General may retain an official in service until the end of the last day of the month in which the official reaches the age of 65”. It is clear from these provisions that no appointment may be extended beyond that final limit, as the Tribunal has in fact already observed in Judgments 580, under 11, and 3071, under 12."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 580, 3071

    Keywords:

    retirement;



  • Judgment 3521


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for a two-year prolongation of service beyond retirement age.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    age limit; complaint allowed; decision quashed; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; retirement;



  • Judgment 3509


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to send his mail to an address, which is not the declared residence address in his last retirement questionnaire.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; residence; retirement;



  • Judgment 3317


    117th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to prolong his service beyond the normal retirement age.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    age limit; complaint dismissed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;



  • Judgment 3316


    117th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to prolong his service beyond the normal retirement age.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    age limit; complaint dismissed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;



  • Judgment 3285


    116th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In his first complaint, the complainant impugns the decision denying him an extension of employment beyond the age of 65. By his second complaint, he seeks to challenge the appointment of his successor.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    age limit; complaint dismissed; extension beyond retirement age; retirement;



  • Judgment 3214


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The complainant complains about the length of time which elapsed between the filing of his request for the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age and the decision taken on it.
    "Since under Article 54 of the Service Regulations the granting of an extension of an appointment is subject to the condition that it is justified in the interest of the service, the Organisation is right in saying that any decision on the subject can logically be taken only at a date relatively close to that on which the permanent employee concerned will reach normal retirement age. Indeed, if the Organisation were to proceed otherwise, the competent authority would not be in a position to make an informed assessment of the advisability of such an extension in light of that criterion."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 54 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the EPO

    Keywords:

    acceptance; age limit; condition; criteria; date; decision; delay; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; request by a party; retirement; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, and plainly there is nothing abnormal in stipulating that an extension of appointment beyond that age limit, which by definition constitutes an exceptional measure, can be granted only if it is in the interest of the service."

    Keywords:

    age limit; career; condition; exception; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; retirement; right;

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, claims that he was not informed of the names of the members of the Selection Committee.
    "In the instant case, while the Organisation does not dispute the fact that it did not advise the complainant of the names of the Committee members, he does not say that he asked for this information, although he had every opportunity to do so during the proceedings, in particular when he received the invitation to his interview with that body. Since he did not seek to assert that right, he may not submit that the [Organisation], which was not obliged to supply him with the information in question of its own accord, denied him the possibility of exercising it."

    Keywords:

    age limit; composition of the internal appeals body; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
    "The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
    [T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension beyond retirement age; general principle; grounds; official; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;



  • Judgment 3129


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [T]aking into account the fact that the complainant is now retired, the Tribunal will order an award of material damages in the lump sum amount of 35,000 euros for the loss of a valuable opportunity for the complainant to be appointed P-5 in the wake of an exclusively internal competition and the consequent loss of salary and pension benefits.

    Keywords:

    moral injury; retirement;

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top