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: 6

  • 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 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 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: 22.01.2021 ^ top