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 1871
87th Session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that the Director-General gave paramount importance to the principle of geographic distribution, which resulted in him selecting the applicant who was second in the list recommended by the Selection Committee because that applicant was a national of an 'under-represented' country, while the complainant, who was in first place, was a national of an 'equitably represented' country. Analysis of the [Constitution, General Rules and Manual of the organization as well as] the facts of the case show that the Director-General was mistaken in his interpretation of these provisions. The Constitution [...] clearly states that the highest standards of efficiency and of technical competence' are of paramount importance in appointing staff. The Selection Committee is under the obligation to recommend for selection the candidate whose qualifications most closely meet the requirements of the post. Therefore the essential qualifications required are the priority criterion. Consideration of other criteria, including seniority of service and geographic distribution, which appear to be of a subsidiary nature, is only envisaged where several candidates are equally well qualified."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; criteria; geographical distribution; nationality; recommendation; selection board; seniority; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1865
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 10
Extract:
"Article 46(5) of the Service Regulations states that 'for a period of two years from the date on which assignment to reserve status takes effect a permanent employee shall have priority for reinstatement in any post corresponding to his grade which may fall vacant or be created, provided that he possesses the necessary qualifications and ability.' The obligation of [the organisation] is not to reinstate the official who has been assigned to reserve status, but to make all the necessary efforts for his reinstatement. In other words, it is not an obligation as to the outcome, but as to the means employed to achieve the outcome."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 46(5) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
condition; creation of post; criteria; organisation's duties; priority; qualifications; reinstatement; staff regulations and rules; vacancy;
Judgment 1864
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2, 5 and 6
Extract:
"Article 72(1) [of the Service Regulations] rules that employees who are nationals of a country other than the one they work in have no right to an expatriation allowance if, when taking up their duties, they had already been permanently resident there for more than three years. [W]hile the system could certainly be improved, it is in line with legal requirements that the applicable rules should precisely define the notion of 'expatriation', and fix a length of residence in the country prior to employment beyond which an employee may not be considered as expatriate. [N]aturally, the length of residence to be taken into account in order to make the distinction may be challenged, but in this matter the tribunal recognises the organisation's discretion, provided that the exercise of such power has no adverse consequences. in this case, a period of three years' residence beyond which the complainants may not be considered as 'expatriates' would appear reasonable."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 72 (1) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
ILOAT Judgment(s): 754
Keywords:
date; duty station; nationality; non-resident allowance; residence; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1855
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2 and 5
Extract:
The complainant appeals against the Executive Head's decision to dismiss his appeal against the refusal of the organisation to grant him special leave to attend a two-day training course. "It is common ground that the decision as to whether or not to grant a staff member special leave to attend training courses is discretionary. [T]he obligations under Article 29 of the Service Regulations to facilitate training may involve different considerations when one looks at the desirability of the staff member's taking such training, and when one has regard to the effect of the staff member's absence on the functioning of the service. In the present case, the refusal of special leave was justified by the growing backlog of [work]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 29 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
criteria; decision; discretion; enforcement; organisation's interest; special leave; staff regulations and rules; training;
Judgment 1852
87th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The Tribunal's case law is consistent to the effect that a complainant cannot attack a rule of general application unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to him. [The present complaint] is a general attack which is not tied to any particular application of the impugned rules to the complainant. It will not therefore be considered by the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 764, 1329, 1423
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; lack of injury; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1845
87th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Under Article II(6) of its Statute the Tribunal is open to a former staff member. However, Article II(5) restricts the competence of the Tribunal, ratione materiae, to complaints alleging the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of a staff member or of the provisions of the applicable staff regulations. On expiry of the complainant's contract, he ceased to be a staff member. His complaint, concerning his non-selection [to the post of assistant to the head of administration] does not involve any allegation of the violation of any rights which he enjoyed under his contract or the Staff Regulations insofar as they continued to apply to him. The Tribunal therefore [cannot] entertain the complaint."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (5) OFTHE STATUTE;
ARTICLE II (6) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; contract; enforcement; external candidate; iloat statute; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1843
87th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
The complainant did not attend the compulsory medical examination on termination of appointment which he had been requested to undergo. "A medical examination at the time of termination is not a mere formality: it is intended to establish with some degree of certainty - in the interests of both parties - a staff member's state of health upon termination. [...] The Tribunal holds that Article R II 4.20 b) of the Staff Regulations disqualified the complainant from making a claim for compensation in respect of a work-related injury or illness discovered after termination."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 4.20 B) OF THE ESO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
allowance; enforcement; illness; medical examination; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1818
86th Session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The provisions of the Statute and Staff Rules aiming at protecting staff members against termination in the course of sick leave do not prevent an organization from accepting, during such leave, the letter of resignation of a staff member, if the latter wrote his letter of his own free will.
Keywords:
acceptance; condition; lack of consent; resignation; sick leave; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
Judgment 1804
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
The promotion of Mr C., presented as the fulfilment of a promise made to him on recruitment, gave rise to a decision adopted on 7 December 1994. "Only that decision was notified to the staff. So the complainants, who were unaware of the promise, were in good faith in challenging the promotion on the grounds that it was in breach of the Rule it actually cited. So they were right in saying that Mr C. had been promoted to A4 even though he did not fully qualify under the [relevant] rules [...]. Because of the unusual circumstances in which Mr C. was promoted the complainants were also right to challenge the decision: the [Organization] had on the face of it failed to observe the general principle of equal treatment because in promoting Mr C. it did not abide by the requirements of the Service Regulations or by the criteria for promotion to which the complainants were themselves subject. The conclusion is that the complainants did suffer moral injury and each of them is entitled under that head to [compensation]".
Keywords:
appointment; breach; cause of action; condition; decision; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; grade; injury; moral injury; promise; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1790
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant says that the Organisation has paid him a termination indemnity reckoned on the strength of only six years' service though he was on its staff for over twelve years. The defendant's answer is that according to the Staff Regulations the complainant had only six years' unbroken service. The Tribunal considers that "the defendant has misread its own rules. For the purpose of reckoning the total period of unbroken service they do not, as it makes out, distinguish between a year served as a fellow' and a year served as a staff member or auxiliary."
Keywords:
continuance of operations; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; terminal entitlements;
Judgment 1789
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[The Organisation] rejected [the complainant's application] on the grounds that he was overqualified [for the job put up for competition]. Such grounds are wrong in law. Yet they are the only ones on which the [organisation] rejected the complainant, purporting to act under R II 1.03 [of the Staff Regulations]. It thereby denied the complainant his right to apply and to have his application properly considered. There was breach of equal treatment."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 1.03 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
breach; candidate; competition; criteria; discretion; equal treatment; flaw; grounds; procedure before the tribunal; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1782
85th Session, 1998
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"What [Staff Rule 110.02 a) on abolition of posts and staff reduction] entitles staff members with permanent appointments to is preference to 'suitable posts in which their services can be effectively utilized', and that means posts not just at the same grade but even at a lower one. [...] The Advisory Group should have asked the complainant [who held grade G.7] at the outset whether she would accept a G.6 post. Because it failed to do so, it considered her for vacant posts at G.7 only and deprived her of the opportunity of being considered for G.6 vacancies." See also Judgment 346 [...].
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNIDO'S STAFF RULE 110.02 A)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 346
Keywords:
abolition of post; contract; duration of appointment; grade; organisation's duties; permanent appointment; post; priority; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; vacancy;
Judgment 1775
85th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Staff Rule 1050.2, which [the complainant] relies on, states that [the reduction-in-force procedure] applies only to a post of indefinite duration'. The post held by the complainant [...] was designated as a 'project post'. As Manual paragraph II.9.260 makes plain, the reduction-in-force procedure does not apply to posts of 'limited duration', a category which specifically includes country project posts."
Keywords:
criteria; enforcement; fixed-term; permanent appointment; post; project personnel; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1764
85th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "He makes out that [...] there was no express ban on what he did. Even if that were so, employees of the [Organisation] have a duty [...] 'to regulate their conduct with the interests of the [Organisation] only in view', and may not so behave as to harm its good name. There is no need for any express rule against cheating. Common decency, good faith and honest dealing lie at the root of relations between employer and employee. Whoever ventures to ignore that does so at his own peril."
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; duty of loyalty; fitness for international civil service; honesty; international civil service principles; misconduct; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[A]lthough in all fairness an organisation must tell the staff member of the charges against him, it need not go into the detail of the penalties he may be incurring. Besides, the complainant must be deemed to have been familiar with the [staff] rules, and they do set out all the penalties, including dismissal. The staff member's right to know and to answer the charges against him does not require that he be told just what the punishment may be if he is found guilty."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; duty of loyalty; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; honesty; limits; organisation's duties; purport; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1755
85th Session, 1998
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[A]ny ambiguity in the Regulations the [Organisation] has issued should be construed contra proferentem and in favour of the staff."
Keywords:
interpretation; organisation's interest; pension; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 1736
85th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Of course the first report should have been done earlier and the complainant is right enough to cite Rule 540.1. but [...] he was himself largely to blame for the delay, not having filled up the report form until [a given date]. Besides, his second- level supervisor had told him orally, before putting it in the report, that he was not cooperative enough. It is plain on the evidence that he knew full well that his performance had been found wanting; so he may not properly argue that he was told too late to be able to improve."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: STAFF RULE 540.1
Keywords:
complainant; date; delay; duty to inform; liability; performance report; period; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;
Judgment 1733
84th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The authorities of the complainant's home country, who were asked to give an opinion about giving him a promotion, declined their support for him but gave no reasons. If the country "had given a reason the Director General would have had to consider whether it was sound or not and whether refusing him the appointment was in the Agency's best interests. since it offered none, he had no basis on which to exercise his discretion. The complainant was fully qualified for promotion; his abilities were well known to the Agency and appreciated. The paramount consideration mentioned in Article VII.d [of the IAEA Staff Regulations] was heeded, namely seeking staff of the highest standards of efficiency, technical competence and integrity. The reason stated by the Agency for refusing him the appointment which he would otherwise have been granted is therefore untenable and acting from that reason amounted to a mistake in law."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE VII.D OF THE IAEA STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
discretion; independence; member state; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; promotion; qualifications; staff regulations and rules;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"In the performance of their duties the Director General and staff may not seek or receive instructions from any source external to the Agency. For the Director General to allow a member State a veto on the appointment of a staff member is to 'receive instructions' from an external source and an interference with the paramount consideration of securing staff of the right calibre. Paragraph 68 of the Administrative Manual and the sentence 'accordingly government sponsorship will be required' [...] are null and void as being contrary to [...] the Statute."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 68 OF THE IAEA MANUAL
Keywords:
appointment; independence; member state; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1728
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"While it is true that the records of selection committees must be made available to appellate bodies, yet, insofar as they relate to staff other than the appellants themselves, they are confidential, and there is no general requirement of disclosure to such appellants."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PARAGRAPH II.9.340.3
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; misconduct; performance report; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1724
84th Session, 1998
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
"Article 3.10.4 of [IFAD's] Manual says that a decision to terminate the contract of employment of an official may be taken by the President, 'and the President alone', in the interests of the Fund. So it does vest discretion in the President to end an appointment in the Fund's interest without resort to disciplinary process. [...] Yet the Fund is mistaken [...] that the President has unfettered authority under the provision to cite the Fund's interests as grounds for dismissal. He must set out the facts fully enough to enable the Tribunal to exercise its power of review and to determine objectively whether it is indeed the Fund's interests that are the reason for the dismissal. As was held in Judgments 1234 [...] under 19 and 1496 [...] under 9, although an organization's 'own interests are paramount [...] it must still, for the sake of proper management and mutual confidence, treat its staff fairly."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.10.4 OF IFAD'S MANUAL
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1234, 1496
Keywords:
discretion; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
Judgment 1715
84th Session, 1998
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"In order to be a 'dependent spouse' someone must be not only the dependant but also the 'spouse' of the staff member. As a general rule, and in the absence of a definition of the term, the status of spouse will flow from a marriage publicly performed and certified by an official of the State where the ceremony has taken place, such marriage being then proved by the production of an official certificate. The Tribunal accepts, however, that there may be de facto situations, of which 'traditional' marriages are examples, and which some States recognise as creating the status of 'spouse'. In each such case where there is no definition of 'spouse' it will be up to the staff member to prove not only the existence of the relevant fact but also the precise provisions of local law which give it consequences and the exact nature of those consequences, and he must show that such law is applicable in the context of the Organisation's Staff Regulations and Rules."
Keywords:
burden of proof; definition; dependant; domestic law; evidence; insurance benefits; marital status; staff regulations and rules;
< 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 >
|
