Retroactivity (832,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Retroactivity
Total judgments found: 7

• Judgment 4737

  
  137th Session, 2024
  Energy Charter Conference
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who was the Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat, challenges the decision not to launch the procedure for his reappointment as Secretary-General.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  The limitation on reapplication [to the position of Secretary-General] was to operate in the future and, in terms, was to operate on the “serving” Secretary-General. Thus, it was, in terms, to apply in the future to anyone with that status. While the complainant acquired that status (by way of reappointment) on the same day the amendment took legal effect, the amendment creating the limitation on reapplying could and would, on its face, apply at the expiration of the term of the complainant’s reappointment. It is the combined effect of the historical fact that the complainant had been reappointed once to the position in 2016, effective 1 January 2017, together with his status as Secretary-General after the amendment came into effect, that engaged the amendment.
  Moreover, the purpose of the amendment is clear. It was to eliminate the possibility that a serving Secretary-General could, by repeated reappointments flowing from repeated reapplications, remain in the position for a very lengthy period of time. Its purpose was to ensure finite periods of occupation of the position rather than open-ended periods.

  Keywords:

  appointment; executive head; retroactivity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4365

  
  131st Session, 2021
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant requests the review of Judgment 4224.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  [I]n accordance with the general principle of international civil service law that a decision adversely affecting a staff member cannot have retroactive effect from a date prior to the date on which it is notified to her or him (see Judgment 1669, under 17), the decision to dismiss the complainant summarily had taken effect on 10 November 2016.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1669
  

  Keywords:

  retroactivity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4335

  
  131st Session, 2021
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of the allowance she received during her parental leave.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s case law states, in Judgment 2315, consideration 23, for example, that 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): 2315
  

  Keywords:

  retroactivity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4257

  
  129th Session, 2020
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 2315, consideration 23, 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): 2315
  

  Keywords:

  retroactivity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3726

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her claim for compensation on account of labour exploitation and compulsory labour.

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  [The Tribunal] can grant damages if it is not disputed that the complainant performed work beyond her current grade (see, for example, Judgment 3284, considerations 14 and 17). The Tribunal therefore determines that the complainant is entitled to material damages for the tasks that she performed above her G.5 grade, and that she is entitled to moral damages for the prejudice that she suffered by IOM’s breach.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3284
  

  Keywords:

  grade; material damages; moral injury; order; post classification; reclassification; retroactivity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3185

  
  114th Session, 2013
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant successfully challenges her performance evaluation report, alleging personal prejudice and discrimination on the part of her direct supervisor.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance report; retroactivity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3135

  
  113th Session, 2012
  Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  As the Tribunal has often stated, a provision is retroactive only if it effects some change in a person’s existing legal status, rights, liabilities or interests from a date prior to its proclamation, but not if it merely alters the effects of this status or of these rights, liabilities or interests in the future (see, inter alia, Judgments 2315, under 23, or 2986, under 14). In the present case, however, the new provision in question did not alter the compensation in lieu of notice already paid to the complainant, but only introduced a new rule on the subject, which was subsequently applied to her. It did not therefore alter any legal status, or infringe any right as from a date prior to its issuance and it thus produced effects only in the future.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315, 2986
  

  Keywords:

  retroactivity;