Case law of other tribunals (751,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Case law of other tribunals
Total judgments found: 8

• Judgment 4593

  
  135th Session, 2023
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of his right to supplementary days of annual leave for “travelling time”.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  In its submissions, Eurocontrol relies on the case law of the General Court of the European Union in support of its arguments. However, it is established, as the complainant rightly points out, that the Tribunal is not bound by the case law of other international or regional courts (see, for example, Judgment 4363, consideration 12).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4363
  

  Keywords:

  case law of other tribunals;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4496

  
  134th Session, 2022
  Energy Charter Conference
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered moral harassment, in particular when his end-of-service certificate was drawn up.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  In Judgment 4167, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following concerning the applicable provision in another organisation that made the existence of harassment contingent on the alleged harasser’s intention to commit harassment:
  [...]
  This Tribunal is obviously not bound by the case law of the courts of the European Union. However, in the present case, it interprets Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations in the same way, bearing in mind that this interpretation is in line with its general case law on the subject, according to which harassment and mobbing do not require any malicious intent (see Judgments 2524, consideration 25, 3400, consideration 7, and 4085, consideration 15).” [...]
  The Tribunal reiterated that intent is not a necessary element of harassment in Judgment 3250, consideration 9.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3400, 4085, 4167
  

  Keywords:

  case law of other tribunals; harassment; intention of parties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4479

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the changes made with respect to their salary resulting from the decision of the Director-General to implement the unified salary scale as adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  [I]n substance, this plea is no more than a recitation of findings, observations and conclusions in a passage in a judgment, quoted in the brief, on this topic by the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, Judgment UNDT/2017/098 (a judgment vacated on appeal by Judgment 2018-UNAT-841 of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal). This Tribunal is not bound to accept such findings, observations and conclusions and all the more so in the absence of evidence supportive of them.

  Keywords:

  case law of other tribunals; unat;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4381

  
  131st Session, 2021
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the changes made with respect to her salary.

  Considerations 22-26

  Extract:

  It is appropriate to say something about two judgments in the UN Tribunal system although this Tribunal is not bound by them (see, for example, Judgment 3138, consideration 7). The first is a Judgment of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT): UNDT/2017/097. The second is a Judgment of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) (Judgment 2018-UNAT-840) upholding an appeal against the first mentioned decision. The proceedings concerned a challenge to the unified salary scale arising from the 2015 ICSC Annual Report, that is to say, the same scale impugned in these proceedings. A central issue was whether the removal of the dependency element and the effect of its removal involved a breach of an acquired right. The UNDT’s approach led to the conclusion there had been such a breach. Generally, the UNDT’s consideration of the issue involved an orthodox application of principles accepted and applied by a multitude of international administrative tribunals including this Tribunal. The approach of the UNAT was different.
  After a lengthy and detailed discussion of the facts and the authorities, the UNDT addressed the question of whether there have been breaches of an acquired right. The UNDT’s reasoning included the following elements. The salary of the affected staff was a fundamental element in the contract of employment of each. The staff had a legitimate expectation that such a fundamental element could not be changed without their consent. The right to salary necessarily extends to its quantum. The balance between the rights and obligations of the parties would be broken if an organisation was allowed to unilaterally modify the level of salary. As salaries increased over time, staff have an accrued right to be paid the newly determined salaries. The quantum of the newly determined salaries enjoys the same protection as the initial ones.
  In relation to the specific position being addressed, namely the elimination of a salary with a dependency element and the creation of a unified salary scale, the UNDT reasoned as follows. The additional payment made on account of dependence was initially embedded in staff salaries which is a fundamental and essential term of employment. Accordingly it could not be unilaterally reduced or discontinued irrespective of the reason for the change or its impact. The UNDT went on to conclude that the introduction of the transitional allowance was insufficient to safeguard the acquired rights of the applicants.
  The difficulty with the UNDT’s analysis is that it did not sufficiently recognise that a methodology for the calculation of payment for work done, which depends on a factor not referable to that work done, is readily amenable to change. It is to be recalled that one of the relevant considerations in assessing whether there has been a breach of an acquired right is the reason for the change.
  The UNAT plainly did not accept the reasoning or conclusion of the UNDT when upholding an appeal from its decision. Much of the UNAT’s reasoning central to its decision focused on the meaning of the expression “acquired rights” in Staff Regulation 12.1 which provided that the regulations could be supplemented or amended “without prejudice to the acquired rights of members of the staff”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3138
  

  Keywords:

  case law of other tribunals; icsc decision; un common system;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4363

  
  131st Session, 2021
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of retaliation, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  [I]n Judgment 3138, consideration 7, it was recalled that this Tribunal is in no way bound by the case law of other international or regional courts.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3138
  

  Keywords:

  case law of other tribunals;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4167

  
  128th Session, 2019
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  This Tribunal is obviously not bound by the case law of the courts of the European Union. However, in the present case, it interprets Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations in the same way, bearing in mind that this interpretation is in line with its general case law on the subject [...].

  Keywords:

  case law of other tribunals;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3138

  
  113th Session, 2012
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  It must [...] be recalled that under Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, which defines its jurisdiction, the Tribunal is competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of employment of officials and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations applicable to a particular case. On that basis, it develops its own case law which takes account of the fundamental rights enjoyed by civil servants and the general principles of the international civil service. On the other hand, it is in no way bound by the case law of other international courts, or by that of the courts of the European Communities, to which the complainant refers extensively in her submissions.

  Keywords:

  applicable law; case law of other tribunals;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3034

  
  111th Session, 2011
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  This Tribunal is not bound by the case law of the European Union’s judicial bodies. It must further be noted that the legal context of this case law is different.

  Keywords:

  applicable law; case law of other tribunals; european union;