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 of rules (899,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Interpretation of rules
Total judgments found: 8

  • Judgment 4321


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The principles of statutory interpretation are well settled in the case law. As the Tribunal reiterated in Judgment 4178, consideration 10:
    “The primary rule is that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see, for example, Judgments 3310, consideration 7, and 2276, consideration 4). Additionally, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3734, consideration 4, ‘[i]t is the obvious and ordinary meaning of the words in the provision that must be discerned and not just a phrase taken in isolation’.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2276, 3310, 3734

    Keywords:

    interpretation of rules;



  • Judgment 4320


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her application for a vacant post on the grounds that, as the holder of a fixed-term contract, she was not eligible to participate in the competition process.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [W]ell-established principles of statutory interpretation [were] recently reiterated by the Tribunal in Judgment 4178, consideration 10. The Tribunal stated:
    “The primary rule is that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see, for example, Judgments 3310, consideration 7, and 2276, consideration 4). Additionally, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3734, consideration 4, ‘[i]t is the obvious and ordinary meaning of the words in the provision that must be discerned and not just a phrase taken in isolation’.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2276, 3310, 3734, 4178

    Keywords:

    interpretation of rules;



  • Judgment 4178


    128th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him a promotion in the 2014 professional promotion exercise.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The principles of statutory interpretation are well settled in the case law. The primary rule is that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see, for example, Judgments 3310, consideration 7, and 2276, consideration 4). Additionally, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3734, consideration 4, “[i]t is the obvious and ordinary meaning of the words in the provision that must be discerned and not just a phrase taken in isolation”. The meaning of the phrase “are expected to” read in the context of the complete text of the provision simply conveys to the Regional Directors what they are to do at that point in the process. The provision instructs the Regional Directors to do two things. First, the Regional Directors are to rank the reviewed candidates in order of priority. Second, the Regional Directors are to endorse the recommendation of “no more than” 50% of the candidates reviewed at the second level. The obvious and ordinary meaning of this provision does not allow for any deviation from the specified upper limit of the allotted quota by the Regional Directors.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2276, 3310, 3734

    Keywords:

    interpretation; interpretation of rules;



  • Judgment 4099


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her position.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that, further to the abolition of her position, she ought to have benefited from the reassignment process provided for by Staff Rules 1050.2 et seq. But this plea, which can only concern the decision announcing the termination of her appointment and not the decision to abolish the position itself, is unfounded.
    This reassignment process, the purpose of which is to propose new employment within WHO to staff members whose positions have been abolished, only applies, under the terms of Staff Rule 1050.2, to the holders of fixed-term appointments “who have completed at least five years of continuous and uninterrupted service”. However, [...] the complainant had not completed this minimum length of service at the date of notification of the decision to abolish her position.
    As the Tribunal has previously observed, the terms of the [...] Rule cannot be given a broad interpretation creating eligibility for the reassignment process for employees who do not fulfil that stated condition (see Judgment 3159, consideration 9). Moreover,
    although the complainant argues that, in Judgment 3582 [...] and Judgment 3688, the Tribunal rejected the application of the English version of this Rule on the grounds that it was more rigorous than the French version with regard to another point, this case law is not applicable to the present case, given that the complainant does not even fulfil the above-mentioned condition of the minimum length of service, which is common to both versions of the text.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3159, 3582, 3688

    Keywords:

    interpretation of rules;



  • Judgment 4066


    127th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote her in the 2013 promotion exercise.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    It is a basic rule of interpretation that words which are clear and unambiguous are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning and that words must be construed objectively in their context and in keeping with their purport and purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4031, under 5, and 3744, under 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3744, 4031

    Keywords:

    interpretation; interpretation of rules;



  • Judgment 4057


    127th Session, 2019
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reduce her pension on the basis of a reduction of the consumer price index.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The rule or principle of interpretation is that a clause in a document should be interpreted in favour of the party who did not draft the clause (in this case the staff), and not in favour of the party who did draft the clause, sought the inclusion of the clause or possibly in whose interests the clause was intended to operate (that is to say contra proferentem). However this rule, whatever its width, only operates in circumstances where the clause is ambiguous (see, for example, Judgment 1755, consideration 12, and, more recently, Judgment 3355, consideration 16).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1755, 3355

    Keywords:

    contra proferentem; interpretation; interpretation of rules; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 3754


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    It must be accepted that Staff Rule 1050.3 identifies the paramount consideration for reassignment as “the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity with due regard given to the performance, qualifications and experience of the staff member concerned”. Equally, however, it must be accepted that Staff Rule 1050.7 provides that the affected staff member “may be provided with training to enhance specific existing qualifications”. WHO contends in its reply that the use of the term “may be provided” denotes a possibility only and “certainly not an obligation to offer training”. This is true but the comment misses the point. This provision is more appropriately viewed as creating a tool that is available to WHO to facilitate reassignment in circumstances where an official may, with some retraining, be reassigned but without it, faces separation because the official’s post has been abolished. Also, Staff Rule 1050.7 should not be taken to impliedly limit WHO’s overarching obligation to make “reasonable efforts” to reassign. The type of training is, in this provision, cast in fairly narrow terms (to enhance specific existing qualifications). However, there may be cases where training of a broader character might appropriately be provided by WHO as part of the process of making “reasonable efforts” to reassign.

    Keywords:

    interpretation of rules;



  • Judgment 3189


    114th Session, 2013
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge their placement in the new grade structure following the entry into force of the administrative reform at Eurocontrol.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "[The] duty of care [...] does not in any way imply a duty always to interpret texts in the staff’s favour."

    Keywords:

    duty of care; interpretation; interpretation of rules; judicial review; organisation's duties; written rule;


 
Last updated: 15.09.2021 ^ top