|
|
 |
|
|
Family allowance (334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Family allowance
Total judgments found: 30
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 9
Extract:
In Judgment 498, the Tribunal had [...] noted that, contrary to what the complainant maintains in the present case, it was not unlawful for staff members in the Professional category and those in the General Service category to receive different amounts of family allowance, since the principle of equal treatment can only be applied to staff members who are in the same situation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 498
Keywords:
allowance; equal treatment; family allowance; general service category; professional category;
Judgment 4491
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her with immediate effect for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; family allowance; misconduct; reinstatement; summary dismissal;
Judgment 4470
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns Eurocontrol’s decision to stop payment, as from 1 August 2016, of the education allowance and the dependent child allowance which he was receiving in respect of his daughter.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; dependent child; family allowance;
Judgment 3406
119th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint (relating to dependant child allowance) for failure to exhaust internal means of redress.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; family allowance;
Judgment 3405
119th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge the implied decision to reject their claims relating to tax relief for dependant children (for irreceivability).
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; family allowance; joinder; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 3203
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint is directed at the Secretary-General’s decision to refuse to recognise same-sex marriages.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is true that the case law of the Tribunal on the question of benefits for same-sex partners has developed in the last decade. This is illustrated by Judgment 2860. Indeed, there are opinions of individual judges concluding that staff rules denying access to dependency benefits to same-sex partners are unenforceable because they violate fundamental principles of law (see, for example, the dissenting opinion of Justice Hugessen in Judgment 2193)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2193, 2860
Keywords:
case law; definition; dependant; difference; enforcement; family allowance; interpretation; marital status; provision; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3167
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the request by the EPO for the recovery of household allowance overpayments.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; family allowance; recovery of overpayment;
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 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 2643
103rd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, a British national, entered into a "Civil Solidarity Contract" (PACS) under French law with his same-sex partner and had his partnership registered under the Civil Partnership Act applicable to British citizens. The ITU refused to recognise his partner as his dependent spouse for determination of the benefits pertaining to that status. "The Tribunal has accepted in several recent judgments that same-sex marriages (see Judgment 2590) and unions taking the form of 'registered partnerships' must be recognised where the national legislation applicable to the staff member concerned allows persons who have contracted such unions to be treated as 'spouses' (see Judgments 2549 and 2550). The important difference between the present case and those previously decided lies in the fact that the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules explicitly define the concept of spouses as denoting husband and wife in a large number of provisions, and that, contrary to the situations examined in Judgments 2549 and 2550, the ITU refuses to accept that same-sex unions lawfully contracted under the national legislation of the official concerned may be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. It follows that the defendant was not wrong in asserting that, in the light of the case law and the applicable Regulations and Rules as they currently stand, the Secretary-General was barred from giving the term 'spouse' the broad interpretation requested."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2590
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; marital status; provision; purpose; refusal; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2549
101st Session, 2006
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10, 11 and 13
Extract:
The complainant, a Danish national, was employed by the ILO from 3 January 2002 to 2 January 2005. She had entered into a registered partnership with her same-sex partner. On taking up her functions, she submitted a Certificate of Registered Partnership drawn up in accordance with the Danish Act on registered partnership and asked to be granted dependency benefits, designating her partner as her spouse. Her request was rejected. The Office stated that it was "in a position to recognise same-sex marriages immediately where the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality recognises such marriages." It has in fact recently recognised such same-sex marriages where the national legislation defines same-sex marriages as spousal relationships.
"The question is whether the broad interpretation of the term 'spouse' already given by the Office in the case of a marriage recognised by the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality should have been extended to unions between same-sex partners which are not expressly designated as marriages under the national law of the staff member concerned. The Tribunal feels that a purely nominalistic approach to this issue would be excessively formalistic and is inappropriate in view of the fact that the situation varies from one country to another and that great care must be taken not to treat officials placed in comparable situations unequally: it is not because a country has opted for legislation that admits same-sex unions while refusing to describe them as marriages that officials who are nationals of that State should necessarily be denied certain rights. As pointed out in Judgment 1715 [...], there may be situations in which the status of spouse can be recognised in the absence of a marriage, provided that the staff member concerned can show the precise provisions of local law on which he or she relies. It is therefore necessary to determine whether in the present case the provisions of Danish law enable the complainant and her partner to be considered as 'spouses' in the meaning of the applicable regulations."
After having examined the provisions of the Danish Act on registered partnership, the Tribunal finds that "the Director-General was wrong [...] to refuse to recognise the status of spouse for the complainant's partner [and orders] the ILO [to] give full effect to this ruling by granting the complainant the benefits denied to her during the time of her employment".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1715
Keywords:
analogy; applicable law; burden of proof; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; interpretation; judicial review; marital status; member state; nationality; official; provision; refusal; request by a party; right; same-sex marriage; social benefits; status of complainant;
Judgment 2193
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant, who had entered into a civil solidarity contract (pacte civil de solidarité, hereinafter 'pacs') with his male partner, informed the administration that his partner was entirely dependent on him. The organisation replied that, under the rules currently applicable within the United Nations system, the pacs was not recognised as a formal marriage that could create an entitlement to any benefits or allowances for a dependent spouse. "The complainant submits that, since the Director-General is entitled to modify or create exceptions to the application of the Staff Rules, he could and ought to have made an exception in the present case or amended the disputed text in order to protect the rights of homosexuals. [...] However, irrespective of the validity of the arguments put forward in urging the Director-General to take individual choices into account in the context of a culture of tolerance compatible with changing moral beliefs, the Director-General cannot be compelled to resort to what is merely an option open to him under certain clearly defined circumstances, since exercising that option is entirely a matter of discretion."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; contract; dependant; discretion; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; marital status; same-sex marriage; sex discrimination; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant, who had entered into a civil solidarity contract (pacte civil de solidarité, hereinafter 'pacs') with his male partner, informed the administration that his partner was entirely dependant on him. The organisation replied that, under the rules currently applicable within the United Nations system, the pacs was not recognised as a formal marriage that could create an entitlement to any benefits or allowances for a dependent spouse. The Tribunal shares the view that the organization "is not bound by contracts entered into under national laws".
Keywords:
contract; dependant; domestic law; family allowance; marital status; organisation's duties; same-sex marriage; sex discrimination;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant, who had entered into a civil solidarity contract (pacte civil de solidarité, hereinafter 'pacs') with his male partner, informed the administration that his partner was entirely dependant on him. The organisation replied that, under the rules currently applicable within the United Nations system, the pacs was not recognised as a formal marriage that could create an entitlement to any benefits or allowances for a dependent spouse. The Tribunal states that "neither the letter nor the spirit of the relevant texts cited by the parties, nor indeed the case law, enable partners bound by a pacs to be considered as having the status of spouses within the meaning of Staff Rule 103.9."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 103.9
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; contract; dependant; domestic law; family allowance; interpretation; marital status; organisation's duties; same-sex marriage;
Judgment 2016
90th Session, 2001
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As emphasised by the [organisation], the applicable interim Staff Rules provide that the education grant is calculated on the basis of expenses actually incurred. The complainant cannot therefore claim grants calculated on the hypothetical basis of the costs that would have been incurred had he remained in service."
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; burden of proof; condition; education expenses; evidence; family allowance;
Judgment 1814
86th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Though the Director General does have discretion [as to who may be considered as a dependent child], the staff member must be made aware of any criteria he is applying." (See Judgment 1204.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204
Keywords:
criteria; dependant; dependent child; discretion; duty to inform; executive head; family allowance; limits; organisation's duties; parent;
Judgment 1397
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The purpose of the dependant's allowance is to make sure that the dependant has sufficient resources to meet basic needs for such things as food, clothing and shelter. Accordingly, in determining whether the dependant's 'income' is not above a certain figure, account must be taken not only of receipts in cash but also of the value of benefits in kind whose effect is to reduce expenses."
Keywords:
condition; dependant; family allowance; purpose; reckoning;
Judgment 1333
76th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants had their pay docked for one day's strike action. The deductions the EPO made covered all elements of pay including allowances. The complainants sacrificed their family allowance from the EPO whereas other officials, who received an analogous allowance from the Dutch government, suffered no similar loss. "Employees whose families do receive the Dutch child allowance are not in the same position in law as those who receive the EPO family allowance, the source of the benefit not being the same. Since the principle of equal treatment applies only where staff members are in the same position in law, there is no breach of it in the present instance."
Keywords:
criteria; deduction; domestic law; elements; equal treatment; family allowance; general principle; right to strike; salary; strike;
Judgment 1195
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is a general principle of law that any sum paid on a mistaken assumption of fact is recoverable. And since the complainant received payment on the assumption that her husband was her dependant and since that assumption later proved to be mistaken, the sums she received are, according to that principle, recoverable."
Keywords:
family allowance; general principle; recovery of overpayment; refund; right;
Judgment 1142
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
One of the organisation's reasons for refusing the complainant's claim to dependants' allowance for his parents was that they resided in the Netherlands - his duty station - and lived in a flat that belonged to him. Since his mother owned a flat in Rome, the income she could have had from letting that flat had to be taken into account. The Tribunal holds that his "parents are resident, not in the Netherlands, but in Rome. The fact that when visiting the Netherlands, and for whatever length of time, they live in the flat belonging to him is immaterial and affords no grounds for letting his mother's flat in Rome. [...] The organisation's mistake on that score appears to have been a main factor in the President's decision".
Keywords:
allowance; condition; dependant; family allowance; mistake of fact; parent;
Judgment 1118
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"According to Articles 62 and 67 of the Staff Regulations, one item of pay is family allowances; they include the education allowance, of which education expenses form a part, and, contrary to what the complainants make out, the fact that such expenses are paid on the strength of supporting evidence does not make the education allowance as a whole any less an item of pay."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 62 AND 67 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
education expenses; elements; family allowance; refund; salary;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
