Judgment No. 4681
Decision
1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. The applications to intervene are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant contests the ICC’s decision to reject her request to pay her the education grant in respect of her son for the school year 2018-2019.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
interpretation; education expenses; complaint dismissed
Consideration 5
Extract:
The basic principles of statutory interpretation are well settled in the Tribunal’s case law, as the Tribunal confirmed, for example, in Judgments 4145, consideration 4, and 4477, consideration 4:
“The principles of statutory interpretation are well settled in the case law. The primary rule is that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see, for example, Judgments 3310, consideration 7, and 2276, consideration 4). Additionally, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3734, consideration 4, ‘[i]t is the obvious and ordinary meaning of the words in the provision that must be discerned and not just a phrase taken in isolation’.”
Moreover, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3701, consideration 4:
“Where the language of the text is clear and unambiguous, the words must be given effect without looking outside of the text to determine the meaning.”
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2276, 3310, 3701, 3734, 4145, 4477
Keywords
interpretation
Consideration 9
Extract:
The principle of equal treatment does not guarantee that all persons receive the same benefit but, rather, requires that persons in like situations be treated alike and persons in relevantly different situations be treated differently. In the present case, the criteria for the payment of the education grant set forth in Staff Rule 103.18(d)(i) apply equally to all staff members of the ICC. Although, as pointed out by the complainant, this may result in a situation where children at approximately the same age, or even in the same classroom, may be treated differently with respect to the education grant, this is not due to any inconsistency or discrimination in the application of the criteria set forth in Staff Rule 103.18(d)(i), but to a clear and objective cut-off date established by that rule. The cut-off date distinguishes between children who turn five prior to or within the three-month window, and children who turn five outside the three-month window. Because these two categories of children are not in the same legal position, the principle of equal treatment is not violated when these two categories are treated differently.
Keywords
equal treatment; allowance; education expenses
|
