Staff Regulations and Rules (232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Staff Regulations and Rules
Total judgments found: 494
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 | next >
Judgment 2868
108th Session, 2010
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 28
Extract:
"The Centre [...] attempts to lend validity to the Executive Director's decision on the grounds of expediency and that the decision subsequently received the Board's approval. The Tribunal observes that the non-observance of a regulation cannot be grounded on expediency."
Keywords:
breach; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
"On the issue of receivability, the Centre contends that [...] the complainant was late in filing his appeal with the Board, and that his complaint is therefore not receivable."
"The Tribunal rejects this objection to receivability. [T]he Chairman of the Board advised the complainant that the Board had decided to grant his request for review of the administrative decisions despite the late filing of the notice of appeal. [T]he Appellate Body accepted the appeal and, as no objection was then taken, it is not open to the Centre to object before the Tribunal."
Keywords:
delay; internal appeals body; rebuttal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2865
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
Article 72 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office, the EPO's secretariat, concerns the expatriation allowance. Article 72(1) reads as follows:
"An expatriation allowance shall be payable to permanent employees who, at the time they take up their duties or are transferred:
a) hold the nationality of a country other than the country in which they will be serving, and
b) were not permanently resident in the latter country for at least three years, no account being taken of previous service in the administration of the country conferring the said nationality or with international organisations."
"The country in which the permanent employee is permanently resident, within the meaning of Article 72(1)(b) of the Service Regulations, is that in which he or she is effectively living, that is to say the country with which he or she maintains the closest objective and factual links. The closeness of these links must be such that it may reasonably be presumed that the person concerned is resident in the country in question and intends to remain there. A permanent employee interrupts his or her permanent residence in a country when he or she effectively leaves that country with the intention - which must be objectively and reasonably credible in the light of all the circumstances - to settle for some length of time in another country (see Judgment 2653, under 3)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 72(1) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2653
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; condition; definition; duty station; intention of parties; member state; nationality; non-resident allowance; official; organisation; payment; period; residence; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2863
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was notified of the decision he impugns before the Tribunal on 11 March 2008 and filed his complaint against the Eurocontrol Agency on 11 June 2008. The Agency contends that the complainant had three months as from 11 March 2008 to submit a complaint to the Tribunal in accordance with Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency.
"The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the conditions for the receivability of complaints submitted to it are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. An organisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal stipulates that '[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published'.
It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 to set a different time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal by specifying that this must be done within three months rather than within ninety days. In the instant case the complainant, who was notified of the impugned decision on 11 March 2008, had ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal. While he is quite right in arguing that this period of time began on the day after that on which he had received notification and not on the date of notification itself, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law, his complaint is nonetheless time-barred, since this ninety-day period expired on 10 June. His complaint filed on 11 June 2008 was lodged on the ninety-first day after the day following that on which he was notified of the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; difference; flaw; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; organisation's duties; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2862
108th Session, 2010
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 7
Extract:
The critical issue raised by this complaint is whether the complainant was entitled to reimbursement of income tax levied in Canada on the salary and allowances received by her from the Organization.
"It is not in dispute that the complainant was informed before she accepted the offer of appointment that she was not entitled to reimbursement of income tax paid in Canada. She claims that the information given to her at that time was false and that at all relevant times the Staff Regulations and Rules provided for reimbursement [...]. In support of her claim she provides a version of Annex A to the Staff Regulations and Rules [...]. IOM produces another version [of the said Annex]."
"IOM seeks an order for costs against the complainant. Given that initial correspondence with the complainant suggested that income tax would be reimbursed, and given also the confusion relating to the precise terms of Annex A, including that the complainant was provided with a hard copy of the annex in its unamended form, this is not an appropriate case in which to award costs against the complainant."
Keywords:
costs; organisation's duties; payment; refund; staff regulations and rules; tax;
Judgment 2860
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9, 13, 17, 19 and 21
Extract:
The complainant, a French national, entered into a "Civil Solidarity Contract" (PACS) under French law with his same-sex partner. The FAO refused to recognise his partner as his dependent spouse for the purpose of dependency benefits.
"The Tribunal rejects the FAO's assertion that under the Staff Regulations and Rules, the status of 'spouse' can only arise in the context of a marriage. It is now well established in the case law that, unless the term 'spouse' is otherwise defined in the staff regulations, it is not limited to individuals within a marriage. It may also arise from other types of unions. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 2760, under 4, in the absence of a definition of 'spouse' in the relevant regulatory provisions, 'same-sex marriages' [...] or unions in the form of 'registered partnerships' [have] to be recognised by these organisations where the applicable national legislation enable[s] persons who ha[ve] contracted such unions to be regarded as 'spouses' (see Judgments 2549 and 2550)'. (See also Judgment 2643, under 6.)"
"Accordingly, as the Tribunal also observed in Judgment 2549, under 11, it is necessary to determine whether in the light of the provisions of French law, the complainant and his partner should be considered as 'spouses' within the meaning of the FAO Staff Regulations and Rules."
"[The materials of the file] demonstrate that just as in a marriage relationship, PACS partners are required to provide each other with financial support and are jointly liable for debts incurred for daily living. In matters such as immigration, social security, health insurance, home leave and relocation of civil servants, special leave for persons bound by a PACS, inheritance fees and income taxes, PACS partners are treated the same as spouses in a marriage. In a significant recent development, reference is made to the existence of the PACS and the name of the partners in the official register of personal status of individuals who have entered into a PACS, just as marital status is recorded for married persons."
"Not only does a PACS change the legal status of the partners in relation to each other, but it also changes the legal status of the partners in relation to the State in a variety of ways enumerated earlier and in ways that mirror the status of married couples in relation to the State. Just as in a marriage, a PACS establishes a legal relationship of mutual dependence. Further, and at the very least, in the absence of a contrary provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules, the principle of non-discrimination requires that for the purposes of dependency benefits the term 'spouse' be interpretated as applicable to a relationship of mutual dependence under the relevant national law."
"In conclusion, having regard to the materials filed in this proceeding, the Tribunal is satisfied that the provisions of French law give rise to a relationship of mutual dependence, and accordingly, the complainant and his partner must be regarded as 'spouses' under the Staff Regulations and Rules. In these circumstances, the Director-General erred in refusing to recognise the status of the complainant and his partner for the purpose of dependency benefits and, therefore, his decision will be set aside."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2643, 2760
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; dependant; domestic law; family allowance; marital status; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules;
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 2845
107th Session, 2009
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to Article 9.8, paragraph 2, of the UPU Staff Regulations, the Director General may, in the interest of the Union, extend the age limit in exceptional cases. The Tribunal considers that "the Director General's refusal to extend the complainant's service beyond the statutory age limit constitutes an act of retaliation [...]. The Director General used his discretionary authority for purposes other than those for which it was intended, thereby committing an abuse of authority. It follows that the impugned decision must be set aside."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 9.8, paragraph 2, of the UPU Staff Regulations
Keywords:
abuse of power; age limit; amendment to the rules; career; discretion; exception; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; hidden disciplinary measure; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; purpose; refusal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2840
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"WHO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules governing the internal appeal process only refer to a «staff member» and not to a «former staff member». However, Staff Rule 1240.2, which stipulates the conditions for recourse to the Tribunal, does not refer to a «staff member» but to a «person». [...] This is also consistent with Article II, paragraph 6, of the Statute of the Tribunal, according to which the Tribunal shall be open to an official, even if his employment has ceased."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 2, paragraph 6, of the Statute
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects WHO's reliance on its letter [...] as being a communication of a decision that the complainant would not need to have an exit medical examination. There is no basis upon which it could be inferred from the statement «the administrative formalities have been completed» that the mandatory exit medical examination provided for in the Staff Rules was being unilaterally waived. Given that an exit medical examination is mandatory and has potentially significant legal consequences for both parties, it would be expected that a deviation from the norm would be specifically communicated."
Keywords:
duty to inform; medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 21
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal finds that under the WHO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules where a decision has not been communicated until after a staff member has separated from service, the former staff member does not have recourse to the internal appeal process. In these circumstances, a former staff member has recourse to the Tribunal (see Judgment 2582 and the case law cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2582
Keywords:
internal appeal; right of appeal; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tribunal;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Upon being informed of the complainant's forthcoming marriage to the Director of her division, it was entirely proper for the Organization to consider whether the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules or its policy were engaged. It was equally proper to obtain advice on these matters. However, there was no need to canvas the views of some 40 staff members. [...] While properly structured consultations with staff through their association on matters of policy and regulations is appropriate, the canvassing of individual staff members in these circumstances was highly inappropriate and their individual views were irrelevant."
Keywords:
consultation; marital status; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2832
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant retired on 1 March 2007. Having been informed of the appointment, with effect from 1 June 2007, of a number of grade A3 examiners to appeal board member posts at grade A5, he field an internal appeal against the appointments in question. The EPO contends that the complainant, given his status as a retiree, has no cause of action.
"It has to be acknowledged that this objection to receivability is well founded. [...] It is true that the Tribunal's case law as set forth, inter alia, in Judgments 1330, 2204 and 2583, does not make a complaint's receivability depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract. Thus, where a decision is taken, for instance, to appoint a staff member to a particular post, another staff member's interest in challenging such an act does not depend on whether he or she had a relatively good chance of being appointed to the post in question (see, for example, Judgments 1223 and 1272). However, as demonstrated by the same case law, the person concerned must be eligible to occupy the post; otherwise he or she could not be deemed to be legally affected by the disputed appointment. This condition is clearly not met in the present case, because the complainant could not, on account of his retirement, aspire to be appointed as a member of an appeal board with effect from 1 June 2007 and because the disputed decisions therefore had no impact on his own situation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1272, 1330, 2204, 2583
Keywords:
appointment; case law; cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; date; decision; injury; internal appeal; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; retirement; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2820
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"Although the complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable, there was an inordinate delay in providing a reply to the appeal within the time limit provided in the Staff Rules or the time in which the Executive Director was supposed to reply. Had these time limits been observed, the matter would not have proceeded beyond the original complaint. In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to moral damages which the Tribunal sets at 1,000 euros [...]."
Keywords:
delay; internal appeal; moral injury; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2805
106th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4, 5 and 7
Extract:
The complainant lodged an appeal against the decision to reject his complaint of harassment, saying that his counsel would provide further details at a later date. The EPO dismissed the appeal due to the absence of a statement in support thereof. Before the Tribunal, the Organisation contends that the complainant failed to exhaust the internal means of redress.
"The issue at the centre of the complaint is whether it is necessary to provide grounds of appeal."
"There is no express provision in the Service Regulations or in Circular No. 286 requiring that grounds of appeal be specified when lodging an appeal."
"Where regulations and rules or other written documents are silent as to a matter, a term dealing with that matter may be implied, but only if it is so obviously comprehended within the text used in the regulations and rules or other document that its statement is unnecessary, or, if the term to be implied is necessary to give effect to some other term."
Keywords:
general principle; interpretation; interpretation of rules; no provision; provision; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2783
106th Session, 2009
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
The complainant, who parks his car in the Vienna International Centre (VIC), is challenging the decision to double the monthly parking fee effective 1 January 2007.
"In the present case, the impugned decision affects the complainant not as a staff member of the Agency but in his capacity as a user of the VIC garage. Moreover, the financial conditions governing the use of this garage, which is merely a facility offered to the staff of the various international organisations occupying the VIC, do not form part of the complainant's terms of appointment or of the Agency's Staff Regulations.
'While the payment of the fee for the use of the garage does in fact take the form of a direct deduction from the Agency's staff members' salaries, this is simply a means of payment adopted for convenience sake, which does not in any way alter the nature of the fee and does not, in particular, have the effect of incorporating it into the complainant's terms of employment. In this respect, the deduction is comparable to those which an employer may effect from an employee's wages for the purpose of paying, for example, a tax or contribution that is levied at source; here too, the fact that the tax or contribution is so deducted does not afford grounds for considering it to be part of the employee's terms of employment.
This dispute does not therefore fall within the scope of the [...] provisions of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; competence of tribunal; condition; contract; deduction; effect; facilities; iloat statute; increase; official; payment; provision; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2782
106th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
In order to execute Judgment 2560 the Organisation paid salary arrears not only to the officials who had filed the complaints that led to that judgment, but also to all other members of staff and to all former members of staff in receipt of a retirement pension.
"It is not disputed that only the parties to the proceedings leading to the delivery of Judgment 2560 could seek its enforcement. But this does not mean that that judgment remains without effect for staff members who, although they did not participate in those proceedings, are de facto in a situation identical to that of colleagues who did. It is clear from Judgment 2560 that the Organisation breached the provisions of the Staff Regulations by not taking any measure to adjust salaries and pensions for the period under consideration. Staff members who were not party to the proceedings are entitled, for the same reasons as those stated in the judgment, to receive the salary arrears paid to the staff members who participated in those proceedings, provided that they are in the same situation.
Consequently, in deciding to extend the scope of Judgment 2560 to all serving or retired members of staff, the Organisation [...] perform[ed] a legal obligation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2560
Keywords:
adjustment; breach; complainant; effect; execution of judgment; grounds; limits; organisation's duties; payment; pension; purport; res judicata; retirement; right; salary; same cause of action; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2780
106th Session, 2009
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"With regard to the application of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal's case law indicates that this provision must be interpreted in the light of Article VII, paragraph 1, which stipulates that a complaint shall not be receivable unless the internal means of redress provided by the applicable Staff Regulations have been exhausted. Hence, where an organisation takes any decision "upon any claim of an official" - in the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3 - within the sixty-day period thus stipulated, and particularly where it forwards the request to the competent advisory appeal body before the expiry of that period, this step forestalls an implied rejection which could be referred to the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
Keywords:
case law; complaint; decision; iloat statute; implied decision; internal appeals body; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2773
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Nor has the Tribunal found any evidence on file to suggest that the Organization displayed prejudice against the complainant. The circumstance which the complainant cites in support of this contention, namely that he was suspended from his duties on the basis of Staff Rules, cannot be construed in that way, because such a suspension is only an interim, precautionary measure which does not at all prejudge the outcome of the proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 1927, under 5, and 2365, under 4(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365
Keywords:
bias; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; measure of distraint; organisation's duties; provisional measures; staff regulations and rules; suspension; suspensive action;
Judgment 2768
106th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"The principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform employees in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2116, under 5). This duty of care is greater in a rather opaque or particularly complex legal situation. [...] When the complainant took up employment with the Office it had been possible, for at least a year, to obtain the transfer of pension rights from the USS to the Office's pension scheme. But it is clear from the file that the applicable rules were so complex that a mere perusal of the documentation would not enable employees to understand them fully. Furthermore, the Administration and staff members were still largely unfamiliar with the possibility of transferring pension rights. In the light of these particular circumstances, the Office's duty to inform could not be confined to merely handing the applicable texts to the staff members concerned by a possible transfer. This duty demanded that the Office, having obtained such information as was necessary, should draw to the attention of the staff members concerned the possibility of obtaining a transfer of pension rights and should inform them of the procedure to be followed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; participation; pension; pension entitlements; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; transfer of pension rights;
Judgment 2760
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, a Canadian national, married a person of the same sex, as she is permitted to do under the law in force in Canada. She immediately informed the Agency of her new marital status and applied for the dependency benefits to which staff members with a spouse are eligible, but her application was rejected. The defendant points out that, for the purpose of applying its Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, it has a definition of the term "spouse" which refers only to the partners of a union between persons of opposite sex, since the Guide to Dependency Benefits, which was drawn up for the staff, indicates that the term "'[s]pouse' for all purposes of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules is defined to mean the husband or wife". "But this mere information document, which was prepared by the Administration and has no normative value, clearly cannot prescribe the adoption of a restrictive definition which does not appear in the applicable texts themselves.
Furthermore, while the Tribunal notes that the same definition was also given in a Notice to the Staff of 11 July 2005, that document likewise could not narrow the scope of the concept of 'spouse' to which the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules refer. Although the secretariat of an organisation may always circulate a Notice to the Staff to clarify certain provisions of its staff regulations and rules, such a notice cannot impose on staff any restrictive conditions other than those stipulated in the provisions themselves."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Guide to Dependency Benefits
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; binding character; condition; definition; dependant; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; information note; limits; marital status; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purpose; refusal; request by a party; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2750
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 27
Extract:
"Although [IAEA] Staff Regulation 4.02 provides that no notice is necessary in the case of expiry at the due date of a fixed-term or short-term appointment, the duty of an organisation to act in good faith and to respect the dignity of staff members requires that reasonable notice be given, 'particularly so that they may exercise their right to appeal and take whatever action may be necessary' (see Judgments 2104 and 2531)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IAEA Staff Regulation 4.02
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2531
Keywords:
contract; date; fixed-term; good faith; notice; official; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right of appeal; separation from service; short-term; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2747
105th Session, 2008
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant alleges that the regulations governing the creation of posts - in particular Regulation 2.2 of the Staff Regulations and Article 102.6.15 of the General Regulations of the UPU - have been violated. "[T]he Tribunal notes [...] that the complainant is entitled to rely on all the provisions of the General Regulations and Staff Regulations, including those which primarily concern relations between the Council of Administration and the Director General insofar as a breach of these provisions may affect his personal situation."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 2.2 and Article 102.6.15 of the General Regulations of the UPU
Keywords:
breach; consequence; creation of post; executive body; executive head; injury; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 | next >
|
