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 2704
104th Session, 2008
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The principle of freedom of association is infringed if a person is subject to a detriment or disability or is discriminated against because of his or her activities within a staff association or [...] within the Staff Council."
Keywords:
breach; cause; condition; equal treatment; freedom of association; general principle; injury; official; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 2649
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Staff Committee of the EPO's sub-office in Vienna, the complainant submitted a request to the President of the Office that the "staff salary scales mentioned in the annex to Part 2 of the Codex" be forwarded to all agencies supplying temporary personnel to the Office. The President refused to grant the request submitted to him, denying that temporary workers were entitled to remuneration equal to that of EPO staff and underlining that neither the Service Regulations nor the conditions of employment for contract staff applied to temporary workers. The EPO submits that the complainant does not have locus standi to represent temporary workers supplied to the Office. "It is well settled that members of the Staff Committee may rely on their position as such to ensure observance of the Service Regulations (see Judgments 1147 and 1897); but in order for a complaint submitted to the Tribunal on behalf of a Staff Committee to be receivable, it must allege a breach of guarantees which the Organisation is legally bound to provide to staff who are connected with the Office by an employment contract or who have permanent employee status, this being a sine qua non for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In the absence of such a connection resting on a contract or deriving from status, the claim that the Office should forward its salary scales to agencies supplying temporary personnel - whose conditions of employment and remuneration are in any event beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal - cannot be entertained."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1897
Keywords:
breach; claim; communication to third party; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; enforcement; equal treatment; executive head; external collaborator; locus standi; no provision; official; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; terms of appointment; vested competence;
Judgment 2638
103rd Session, 2007
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The main justification for granting benefits such as home leave or an education grant to some staff members is not that the beneficiaries have a particular nationality, but that their duty station is not in their recognised home country. Far from being discriminatory, such practices, which moreover exist in most international organisations, are designed to restore a degree of equality between officials serving in a foreign country and those who are working in a country where they normally have their home. The two categories cannot be regarded as being in identical situations. Consequently, according to firm precedent, the principle of equality must not lead to their being treated in an identical manner when a difference in treatment is appropriate and adapted (see Judgment 2313 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2313
Keywords:
allowance; breach; difference; duty station; education expenses; equal treatment; general principle; home; home leave; nationality; official; organisation's duties; place of origin; practice; purpose; rule of another organisation;
Judgment 2637
103rd Session, 2007
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"So far as concerns the education grant, the argument of discrimination against persons who are the children of international civil servants must [...] be rejected. [The Tribunal considers that] the purpose of the grant is not to confer a financial benefit but to enable a child of a staff member to be educated in the mother tongue of his or her parent and, ordinarily, that will be the language of the country with which the staff member has the closest connection."
Keywords:
allowance; breach; dependent child; education expenses; equal treatment; nationality; official; parent; place of origin; purpose;
Consideration 20
Extract:
Discrimination occurs when persons in the same position in fact and in law are treated differently, not when there is a relevant difference warranting different treatment that is appropriate and adapted to that difference (see Judgments 1194 and 2313).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1194, 2313
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 2619
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The decision to grant special leave must be made on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to assume that, because special leave has been granted to one staff member, it must be granted to all, unless all cases are identical in fact and in law. [...] Discrimination cannot be established until it is proved that staff members in identical situations were treated differently."
Keywords:
breach; difference; discretion; equal treatment; evidence; exception; official; organisation's duties; same; special leave;
Judgment 2597
102nd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The expatriation allowance [...] is intended to compensate for certain disadvantages suffered by persons who are obliged, because of their work, to leave their country of origin and settle abroad. The disadvantages are indeed greater for them than for those who do not have the nationality of the country of their duty station either, but who have been living in that country for quite a long time before taking up their duties. Equal treatment demands that the provisions establishing the right of international civil servants to receive an expatriation allowance take fair and reasonable account of these different situations. The length of time for which foreign permanent employees have lived in the country where they will be serving, before they take up their duties, therefore forms an essential criterion for determining whether they may receive this allowance. It has been held that the period of three years' residence required by Article 72(1)b) of the Service Regulations is not unreasonable (see Judgment 1864, under 6)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 72(1)b) of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1864
Keywords:
allowance; compensatory measure; criteria; duty station; equal treatment; nationality; non-resident allowance; purpose; residence; time limit;
Judgment 2556
101st Session, 2006
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is well settled that the principle of equality requires the equal application of the relevant law, not its equal misapplication."
Keywords:
condition; definition; enforcement; equal treatment; general principle; 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 2527
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"Article 12(1) of the Pension Regulations allowed the transfer of pension rights acquired by employees under a pension scheme prior to joining the Office only 'provided that that scheme allow[ed] such transfers to be made'. In the present case, it appears from the submissions that the INPS has not yet accepted the transfer to the EPO of pension rights acquired by employees who, like the complainant, were affiliated to the Italian state pension scheme. However regrettable it may be that employees of the Office in the position of the complainant are left at a disadvantage, the Office cannot be blamed for not amending the provisions of Article 12 at the risk of having to bear the costs of the transfer: the consent of the Italian authorities is clearly necessary before any such transfer can take place.
Nevertheless, the Organisation must not have shown negligence or ill will in submitting the problem raised by the complainant to the Italian authorities. It emerges from the submissions, however, that the Italian authorities were approached unsuccessfully in 1992 and 1998 and [again in] 2004 [...]. The Organisation cannot therefore be accused of having 'blocked' the situation and the complainant is not justified in deeming its conduct to be unlawful."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 12(1) of the Pension Regulations
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; equal treatment; member state; negligence; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff regulations and rules; transfer of pension rights;
Judgment 2520
100th Session, 2006
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
"It is well settled that candidates are entitled to equal treatment in a competition for an advertised post (see Judgment 1990). It is an important aspect of the principle of equality that all candidates be considered objectively. Necessarily, a person's candidacy should not be evaluated by a person whose impartiality is open to question on reasonable grounds. The rule applies not only to those making or participating in the actual decision but also to those who have an advisory role, for they may exert influence on the ultimate decision (see Judgment 179). [...] To say that a person should not participate in the selection of candidates for an advertised position if his or her impartiality is reasonably open to question is not to say that a person should not have had a professional relationship with, or even supervisory responsibility for, one or more of the candidates. However, if the relationship goes beyond the proper bounds of a professional or supervisory relationship, there may well be reasonable grounds to question the impartiality of the person concerned."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 1990
Keywords:
advisory body; bias; candidate; case law; competition; composition of the internal appeals body; equal treatment; impartiality; post; selection board; supervisor;
Judgment 2513
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Deputy Director General submitted a memorandum requesting one-year extensions of contract for the complainant and six other officials who had reached the statutory age of retirement. The Director General dealt with all seven requests. Three were granted. In the complainant's case, the request for extension was simply turned down without any reason being given. The Tribunal recalls its case-law according to which a provision such as Staff Regulation 4.05 gives the Director General a wide measure of discretion and the Tribunal will not interfere in the exercise of that discretion except in extremely limited circumstances. The Tribunal recently confirmed as much in Judgment 2377, which also concerns the IAEA retirement policy. That case is not authority, however, for the proposition that the power to extend appointments beyond normal retirement age can be exercised arbitrarily. In the present case, "[i]t is impossible to conclude other than that the decision in the complainant's case was made for some undisclosed or purely arbitrary reason. Therefore, it cannot stand."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IAEA Staff Regulation 4.05
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377
Keywords:
age limit; bias; case law; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; equal treatment; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; retirement; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2498
100th Session, 2006
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
"Staff members may at any time object to discriminatory treatment and request that the Organization put an end to it (see Judgment 978, under 20)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 978
Keywords:
breach; equal treatment; official; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2418
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Appeals Committee considered that the promotion procedure carried out under the vacancy notice was legally flawed and it unanimously recommended that the three contested appointments be revoked and that the application procedure be re-run. The President of the Office refused to re-run the procedure as recommended by the Committee. The Tribunal, having found that the challenged decision was irregular, in breach of the principle of equal treatment and that the Administration's attitude showed a distinct lack of even-handedness, awards punitive damages in the sum of 2,500 euros to each complainant.
Keywords:
bias; breach; decision; equal treatment; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; punitive damages;
Judgment 2393
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The general principles allow that a discretionary decision with respect to an appointment may be set aside if applicants have not received equal treatment."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; condition; discretion; equal treatment; general principle; right;
Judgment 2377
98th Session, 2005
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment beyond the statutory retirement age. Provisional Staff Regulation 4.05 "makes it clear that the decision whether or not to grant an extension to any particular staff member is peculiarly a matter for the exercise of the Director General's discretion. The Tribunal will only interfere with such exercise on very limited grounds, none of which has been established by the complainant. The fact that such extensions may have been granted to a number of other staff members is simply irrelevant in the circumstances. No one has a right to be retained beyond the applicable normal retirement age, which in the complainant's case was 60."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: AIEA Provisional Staff Regulation 4.05
Keywords:
age limit; burden of proof; competence of tribunal; contract; difference; discretion; equal treatment; executive head; extension beyond retirement age; grounds; lack of evidence; limits; refusal; retirement; right; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2363
97th Session, 2004
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant's application for a post was unsuccessful. "While the complainant is undoubtedly technically qualified for the coveted post, and was found to be so in the two competitions in which she was unsuccessful, she was also, in both cases, found by two separate Selection Committees not to be the most qualified. Although the complainant clearly has a high view of her own merits, the fact that that view is not universally shared by others, whose honesty and good faith the complainant has not been successful in impugning, does not mean that the complainant has been unfairly treated or that she has been denied a promotion which should rightfully have been hers."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; breach; candidate; competence; competition; difference; equal treatment; good faith; lack of evidence; post; promotion; qualifications; refusal; right; selection board;
Judgment 2336
97th Session, 2004
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he publication of the internal invitation for candidature presuppose[s] that the procedure for selecting candidates [...] be conducted in compliance with the general principles recalled in the case law and with rules established prior to the invitation for candidature and known to the candidates, such rules being designed to guarantee objectivity and transparency in order to ensure that all candidates stand the same chances."
Keywords:
case law; competition; duty to inform; equal treatment; general principle; internal candidate; internal competition; vacancy notice; written rule;
Judgment 2314
96th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
The post in respect of which the complainant was receiving a special post allowance was transferred but he has continued to perform the duties of the post. The Director-General has taken the view that transfer was equivalent to the abolition of the post and the allowance was terminated. "The principle of equal pay for work of equal value requires that, until a proper evaluation of the work performed by the complainant is carried out, he should be remunerated at a rate equivalent to that which he would have received by way of special post allowance for so long as he continues to perform all of the duties and responsibilities of the abolished post."
Keywords:
abolition of post; equal treatment; executive head; general principle; organisation's duties; payment; post; refusal; salary; special post allowance; transfer; work appraisal;
Consideration 22
Extract:
"An employer is not absolved from the requirement to ensure equal treatment and equal pay for work of equal value merely because an employee has the right to seek reclassification of his or her post."
Keywords:
equal pay for equal work; equal treatment; official; organisation; organisation's duties; post classification; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary;
Judgment 2313
96th Session, 2004
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is the duty of international organisations to ensure that they abide by the principle of equality and, particularly, that they comply with its requirement that there be equal pay for work of equal value. And if their rules and procedures do not ensure adherence to that principle and its requirement of equal remuneration, it is their duty to initiate procedures that do, whether by way of general rule or some specific procedure for the particular case."
Keywords:
consequence; equal pay for equal work; equal treatment; general principle; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; safeguard; salary; written rule;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The principle of equality requires that persons in like situations be treated alike and that persons in relevantly different situations be treated differently. In most cases involving allegations of unequal treatment, the critical question is whether there is a relevant difference warranting the different treatment involved. Even where there is a relevant difference, different treatment may breach the principle of equality if the different treatment is not appropriate and adapted to that difference."
Keywords:
breach; difference; equal treatment; general principle;
Judgment 2296
96th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"There can be no doubt of the right of an international organisation to set obligatory rules for the conduct of its staff governing various aspects of their relations with their employer, and that this right includes the right to set reasonable limitation periods during which claims against the employer must be asserted. However, such rules must be published or otherwise made known to all the members of staff concerned in a way which can leave absolutely no doubt as to the nature and reach of the rule, and no doubt that it has been brought to the attention of all those to whom it applies. Even if the [Organization] had succeeded in showing that the tax reimbursement instructions had been given to the staff individually, which it has signally failed to do, it would also have to have shown that all others in like case had been similarly advised. Rules limiting the right to exercise a fundamental condition of employment applicable to all international civil servants are only permissible if they, too, are applicable to all."
Keywords:
enforcement; equal treatment; evidence; judicial review; limits; official; organisation's duties; payment; provision; publication; purport; reasonable time; refund; right; tax; terms of appointment; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
