Equal treatment (188, 189, 900, 663,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Equal treatment
Total judgments found: 235
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
Judgment 3073
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"According to the case law, an international organisation which decides to hold a competition in order to fill a post cannot select a candidate who does not satisfy one of the required qualifications specified in the vacancy notice. Such conduct, which is tantamount to modifying the criteria for appointment to the post during the selection process, incurs the Tribunal's censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined. In this respect, a modification of the applicable criteria during the selection procedure more generally undermines the requirements of mutual trust and fairness which international organisations have a duty to observe in their relations with their staff. Secondly, the appointment body's alteration, after the procedure had begun, of the qualifications which were initially required in order to obtain the post, introduces a serious flaw into the selection process with respect to the principle of equal opportunity among candidates. Irrespective of the reasons for such action, it inevitably erodes the safeguards of objectivity and transparency which must be provided in order to comply with this essential principle, breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition. (See Judgments 1158, 1646, 2584 and 2712.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1158, 1646, 2584, 2712
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; breach; candidate; competition; condition; criteria; equal treatment; equity; flaw; grounds; organisation's duties; patere legem; safeguard; vacancy notice; working relations; written rule;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"When a provision [...] provides for the different treatment of different classes of persons, the question whether the provision is discriminatory depends on two issues. The first is whether the specified differences in respect of which different treatment is allowed are differences that justify different treatment; if so, the second issue is whether the different treatment is appropriate and adapted to those differences (see Judgment 2915, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2915
Keywords:
definition; difference; equal treatment;
Judgment 3034
111th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
[W]here an international organisation is required to apply the principle of equal treatment to officials in dissimilar situations, the Tribunal’s case law allows the organisation a broad discretion to determine the extent to which the dissimilarity is relevant to the rules concerned and to define rules taking account of that dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, or 2194, under 6(a)). When a revision of staff regulations takes place, as occurred here, it will inevitably affect various categories of staff differently, depending on their personal or professional characteristics, such as their age or career pattern, and the organisation should naturally not be required to define specific legal rules for each category.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194
Keywords:
discretion; equal treatment; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3032
111th Session, 2011
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17- 18
Extract:
The complainants take the defendant to task for having unlawfully doubled the number of posts to be filled. According to them, any ex post facto change in the legal framework for the competition established by the vacancy notice breaches the principle of transparency of administrative procedures. [...]
According to the Tribunal's case law, when a vacancy is to be filled, staff members must be given sufficient information to enable them to exercise their rights without facing any unnecessary hindrance. A competition aimed at filling a vacant post must be held under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency, which guarantee that the candidates will receive equal treatment (see, for example, Judgment 2210, under 5, and the case law cited therein).
In this case, the question is whether the failure to state explicitly in the vacancy notice that there were two senior translator/reviser posts to be filled might have dissuaded some people from submitting applications or prevented the competition from being conducted under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency which guaranteed that the candidates received equal treatment.
The Tribunal, like the defendant, considers that, given that the qualifications and experience required were exactly the same for the two posts, it cannot reasonably be argued that some people would have applied if they had known that there were two posts instead of just one to be filled. Furthermore, the complainants, who entered the competition anyway, were not adversely affected by that circumstance.
It follows that, since the error committed in the vacancy notice did not taint the competition with any procedural flaw, the plea must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2210
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; duty to inform; equal treatment; formal requirements; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right of appeal; safeguard; selection procedure; vacancy;
Judgment 3020
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
WTO Staff Rule 106.11 provides that "[n]ational income tax on salaries, allowances, indemnities or grants paid by the WTO shall be refunded to the staff member by the WTO." The complainant considers that her salary is indirectly taxed, because it is included in the assessment of her husband's rate of income tax. The Organization rejected her claims for reimbursement of what she describes as "over-taxation by the Swiss tax authorities". The Tribunal holds that "[t]he refusal to provide compensation for the additional amount of tax unfairly levied on the couple's income solely because of the complainant's earned income, although it was exempt from taxation, would have a paradoxical effect. A rule designed to guarantee equal wages would lead to unjustifiable inequality between an official whose earned income was unduly taxed although it was by law exempt from taxation and an official whose tax-exempt salary was taken into account for assessment purposes, thus reducing his/her spouse's disposable income after tax and therefore his/her economic capacity from which the official living with him/her naturally benefits. The impugned decision is therefore unlawful."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WTO Staff Rule 106.11
Keywords:
allowance; breach; compensatory allowance; decision quashed; deduction; domestic law; effect; equal treatment; grounds; marital status; official; organisation; payment; purpose; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; reduction of salary; refund; refusal; request by a party; safeguard; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; written rule;
Judgment 3006
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The principle of equality requires that all candidates in a given year be assessed by reference to staff reports for the same period. It is clear from Judgment 2221 that the principle also requires that if the 'merits' of a candidate for promotion are subsequently upgraded, the question of promotion must be considered on the basis of what would have happened if the upgraded marking had been considered previously."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2221
Keywords:
candidate; equal treatment; performance report; promotion; rating; work appraisal;
Judgment 2980
110th Session, 2011
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"To add candidates to a shortlist after the evaluation process has begun does not comply with the mandatory fairness and transparency of the recruitment process, and could have a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the process as every evaluation is conditioned by the quantity and quality of candidates to be evaluated. It could also have the effect of appearing to have been done to satisfy improper interests, regardless of whether or not one of the candidates added at a later date eventually succeeds."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; equal treatment; formal flaw; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2979
110th Session, 2011
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Non-prolongation of service beyond the statutory retirement age.
"The principle of non-discrimination requires the adoption and implementation of impartial, reasonable and objective rules which provide the same juridical treatment for similar cases. What it forbids is any arbitrary and/or unjustified distinction between individuals or groups in similar or identical positions, not the differentiated or gradated treatment of situations which are intrinsically and objectively different."
Keywords:
definition; difference; equal treatment; general principle;
Judgment 2936
109th Session, 2010
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[T]rifling differences in the respective situations of staff members do not justify different treatment where the people concerned are in what may be regarded as comparable, albeit not identical positions vis-à-vis the rule applying to them [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 792, 2066
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; difference; equal treatment; general principle; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2931
109th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[I]t was an affront to her dignity and a breach of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value to expect the complainant to work at a post that was graded below the level of the duties actually being performed. For this, she is entitled to moral damages [...]."
Keywords:
compensation; equal treatment; grade; moral injury; post; post classification; post description; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2925
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[I]t is neither unreasonable nor discriminatory for an international organisation to establish objective criteria, applicable in all cases, on the basis of which it may presume a person has made his or her permanent residence in a particular country. And in establishing objective criteria, it is neither unreasonable nor discriminatory to set specific periods of permanent residency. Further, it is not unreasonable or discriminatory to select different periods for those who are taking up duty in the country of their nationality and those who are taking up duty in a country of which they are not nationals."
Keywords:
allowance; criteria; duty station; equal treatment; nationality; permanent appointment; residence;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Since the decision to promote the complainant to grade A5 stemmed from a clerical error, i.e. a purely factual error, and not from a genuine intention of its author, the Tribunal considers that it did not create rights for the person concerned and that it could therefore be subsequently reversed.
Indeed, one of the essential requirements of any administrative decision is that it should be consistent with its author's intention. Consequently, where that is not the case, it is important that the impact of the decision should be limited as much as possible, even though its existence cannot be denied. Similar considerations led the Tribunal to set aside the application of a decision resting on a purely factual error in an earlier case concerning the repayment of an indemnity which had been paid in error (see Judgment 1111, under 5). Although the instant case concerns a somewhat different issue, it is likewise appropriate to consider that the decision in question, which stems from a factual error, could not create any rights and that the competent authority was therefore entitled to reverse it at any time. Indeed, the opposite would be liable to conflict not only with the interests of the organisation concerned but also with the principle of equal treatment of officials, insofar as it could, in some extreme cases, result in preposterous individual decisions reached by pure oversight becoming final."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111
Keywords:
decision; equal treatment; individual decision; intention of parties; mistake of fact; organisation's interest; promotion; right;
Judgment 2870
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6, 9 and 15
Extract:
The complaints raise the question whether Article 71 of the Office's Service Regulations - which provides for the payment of an education allowance to employees who are not nationals of the country in which they are serving and, in certain limited circumstances, to nationals of that country - offends the principle of equality. The complainants contend that, at least for the purposes of post-secondary education, Article 71 proceeds by reference to an irrelevant consideration - nationality - and, if it does not, the different treatment directed by that article is neither appropriate nor adapted to the difference involved.
"[N]ationality is the primary distinction mandated by Article 71 [...]."
"In principle, the nationality of the employee is properly to be regarded as a relevant difference warranting different treatment, including with respect to post-secondary education."
"An international organisation such as the EPO, with a large workforce composed of many different nationalities, is entitled to proceed by reference to a rule applicable to all non nationals provided that the rule is appropriate and adapted to their general circumstances. And that is so even if its application in individual cases is less than perfect. Article 71 of the Service Regulations is appropriate and adapted to the general circumstances of the children of non-nationals."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 71 of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2313, 2638
Keywords:
allowance; difference; education expenses; equal treatment; nationality; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2869
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[I]t is not enough that the decision may be reasonable and in good faith; it must also appear to be reasonable and in good faith. [...] [A]ll decisions regarding the promotion or non-promotion of staff union representatives must be, and must appear to be, made impartially so as to avoid any hint of preference or prejudice."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; discretion; equal treatment; good faith; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; respect for dignity; staff representative; staff union activity;
Judgment 2859
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Regarding the allegation of unequal treatment between external and internal candidates, the Tribunal notes that as the situation of the former is different to that of the latter in fact and in law, there is no ground for that allegation."
Keywords:
candidate; equal treatment; grade; internal candidate; promotion;
Judgment 2835
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[T]here is nothing inherently wrong with the promotion of a candidate having less seniority where specific skills are required for a position."
Keywords:
candidate; criteria; equal treatment; promotion; qualifications; seniority;
Judgment 2834
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the complainant's allegation of unequal treatment. The allegation is based on the fact that individuals having less seniority and lower-rated staff reports were invited to the assessment centre. According to the vacancy note, a candidate was expected to demonstrate the ability to manage a directorate comprising 25 to 30 examiners; particular attention would be paid to management potential, and a candidate would be assessed on the basis of his or her ability to manage, resolve disputes, implement policies, and communicate and interact with others. As these managerial skills are not a function of seniority or the requisite skills of an examiner, it cannot be said that preferring candidates with potential managerial skills over those with greater seniority or higher ratings as examiners constitutes unequal treatment."
Keywords:
candidate; criteria; equal treatment; performance report; promotion; seniority;
Judgment 2773
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"The Tribunal also notes that the fact - which greatly surprises the complainant - that the UN did not consider it necessary to initiate proceedings against the other staff members whose conduct was criticised by the OIOS has no bearing on the lawfulness of the measure applied to the complainant in respect of the acts of which he is personally accused, since they are proven and imputable to him (see for example Judgments 207, 1271, 1977 or 2555)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1271, 1977, 2555
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; equal treatment; misconduct; official; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2771
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"There is no evidence of improper motive or unequal treatment in the performance of what was a regular and routine management function. Accordingly, there is no basis for a finding of harassment (see Judgment 1732)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1732
Keywords:
equal treatment; grounds; official; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2725
105th Session, 2008
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[A] complainant is entitled to challenge before the Tribunal a decision that confers benefits on third parties if it may result in unequal treatment to his detriment."
Keywords:
decision; equal treatment; receivability of the complaint;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
