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 2292
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
Even if "the Member States of the [Organisation] are all signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Organisation [...] as such is not a member of the Council of Europe and is not bound by the Convention in the same way as signatory states. Nevertheless, the general principles enshrined in the Convention, particularly the principles of non-discrimination and the protection of property rights, are part of human rights, which, [...] in compliance with the Tribunal's case law, apply to relations with staff."
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; equal treatment; general principle; international civil service principles; international instrument; member state; organisation's duties; provision; right; rule of another organisation; universal declaration of human rights; working relations;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he fact that in connection with pension rights different rules apply according to the place of residence of retired staff members constitutes neither a breach of property rights nor a violation of the principle of equality, provided that the staff concerned are not deprived of any of the rights they enjoy under the statutory and regulatory provisions which apply to them, and that they have freely exercised their right of option."
Keywords:
equal treatment; official; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; provision; residence; written rule;
Judgment 2256
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-16
Extract:
"With regard to the role of a tax reimbursement agreement, the Tribunal stated the following [in judgment 2032]: "It would be strange indeed if the absence of [a tax reimbursement agreement (TRA)] could be invoked by an international organisation or its member states to deprive some staff members and not others of their tax-exempt status. If a member state in breach of its international obligations taxes the exempt income of a staff member, the reimbursement of that tax cannot be made to depend upon the grace and favour of that state."[T]he evident corollary of that statement is that it would similarly be strange if the existence of an agreement could be invoked by an international organisation to deprive some staff members and not others of their tax-exempt status. Such an agreement is meant to set the terms of a member state's commitment to refund an organisation for tax reimbursements. It must, however, conform with international law and cannot be used to undermine the fundamental principles of tax exemption recalled by the Tribunal. Thus, even if the text of the TRA had the reach which the organisation contends for it, which may be doubted, it would simply be unenforceable as being contrary to law. [...] It is likewise with the provisions of the Staff Regulations which, in the organisation's submissions, would limit the complainant's right to tax reimbursement to the amounts actually paid to the organisation by the United States under the TRA. Like the TRA itself, the Staff Regulations must be in conformity with the requirements of the law and where they are not, they are simply unenforceable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2032
Keywords:
equal treatment; international civil service principles; member state; no provision; privileges and immunities; refund; salary; staff regulations and rules; tax;
Judgment 2244
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that the competent bodies of the Organisation may repeal or modify rules they have established, subject to compliance with the principle that similar acts require similar rules, as pointed out in Judgment 1896, but that those bodies' discretionary powers are limited by the general principles of international civil service law, including the principle of equality, whereby officials in the same circumstances should be treated in the same way."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1896
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; discretion; equal treatment; general principle; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; provision; repeal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2210
94th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Where a reserve recruitment list is resorted to, the vacant post is filled without applying the competition procedure provided for in the above-mentioned provisions. Staff members must be given the possibility of entering competitions on the basis of which reserve lists for filling 'similar' posts are to be established. That possibility is denied them if they do not know what is meant by 'similar' posts. [...] The broader the definition of 'similar', the greater the risk of such occurrences. The requirements of equal treatment, objectivity and transparency in appointment procedures place the [organisation] under an obligation to provide a clear and precise definition of the concept of a 'similar' post. [...] It is the responsibility of the [organisation] to specify, in notices of competition, the nature of the posts which can be considered to be 'similar' for the purposes of any subsequent use of a reserve list."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; definition; equal treatment; good faith; organisation's duties; right; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2194
94th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6(a)
Extract:
"The right to equal treatment requires that situations which are the same or similar be governed by the same rules and that dissimilar situations be governed by rules that take account of the dissimilarity. The authority, which is required to give equal treatment to dissimilar situations, has a broad discretion in adopting rules that take into account that dissimilarity (see Judgment 1990, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990
Keywords:
definition; difference; discretion; equal treatment; right; written rule;
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;
Judgment 2163
93rd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"An appointment by an international organisation is a discretionary decision. Being subject to only limited review, it may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal will, in cases like the present, exercise its power of review with special caution, its function being not to judge the candidates on merit but to allow the organisation full responsibility for its choice. [...] Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever his hopes of success may be (see Judgments 1077 [...], 1497 [...] and 1549 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 1497, 1549
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; equal treatment; flaw; formal flaw; good faith; international civil service principles; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right;
Judgment 2138
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant requests that he be considered for a long- term contract. He "can take no comfort from the case of another staff member in a somewhat similar situation who was given a long-term contract [...] The awarding of such contracts is exceptional and wholly discretionary and the fact that a contract is granted to one staff member creates no rights for any other staff member."
Keywords:
acceptance; complainant; contract; discretion; duration of appointment; equal treatment; exception; executive head; official; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2120
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
A paragraph of a notice issued by the Organisation's secretariat stipulates that the spouse of a staff member shall normally not be employed in the same department as the staff member. The Tribunal considers that "the provision improperly discriminates between candidates for appointment based on their marital status and family relationship [...]. Discrimination on such grounds is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, general principles of law and those which govern the international civil service, as well as international instruments on human rights. [...] All forms of improper discrimination are prohibited. What is improper discrimination? It is, at least in the employment context, the drawing of distinctions between staff members or candidates for appointment on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics. Manifestly, the fact that two staff members may be married to each other is not relevant to their competence or the capacity of either one of them to fulfil their obligations. and, if it is thought that marital or intimate personal relationships between staff members may create management problems, such problems must be dealt with in ways that do not discriminate against either of them as a result of such relationships. The Tribunal notes that [the notice] as it is written, besides being too broad, is not even effective in dealing with the presumed possibility of undue influence or favouritism for it is silent on non-marital intimate relationships. It also fails to deal with marriages taking place after appointment".
Keywords:
administrative instruction; assignment; breach; candidate; competition; definition; difference; equal treatment; family relationship; general principle; grounds; international civil service principles; international instrument; official; organisation; post; provision; publication; qualifications; staff member's duties; terms of appointment; un charter; universal declaration of human rights;
Judgment 2097
92nd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
Because of serious financial difficulties the organisation had to employ the complainants simultaneously under a fixed- term appointment at half-time and a short-term part-time appointment. After being restored to their full-time fixed-term status they complained about the rates of remuneration received by them under their short-term contracts. "The principle which guarantees equal remuneration for work of equal value [...] is designed to prevent discrimination by employers between employees and to ensure that persons performing different work of the same or similar value shall receive equal remuneration. The organization is right to submit that its most common application is to the classification or grading of jobs [...]. That principle was never intended to apply so as to give rise to a claim by an individual to be paid at the same rate for all work which he or she performs: differential rates for work performed under different conditions, such as overtime to take a common example, are not discriminatory. In the present case there is nothing improper in the who's paying lower rates to persons such as the complainants doing temporary work on a short-term basis."
Keywords:
amount; budgetary reasons; condition; contract; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; fixed-term; general principle; official; organisation; overtime; part-time employment; post classification; safeguard; salary; scale; short-term; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2066
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"There is breach of equal treatment only where staff members in an identical or comparable position in fact and in law receive different treatment from the organisation. Consequently, the right to equal treatment does not preclude amendment of a rule or the way in which it is applied. A new rule could be less favourable than the old one, and hence be subject to challenge, without necessarily impairing the right to equal treatment."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; definition; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; general principle; right; written rule;
Judgment 2060
91st Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Candidates who apply for a post to be filled by competition, whatever their hopes of success may be, are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair competition. An organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and when the process proves flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must 'shield' the successful candidate from any injury (see for example Judgments 1990 and 2020 and the others cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2020
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; competition cancelled; condition; due process; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; injury; international civil service principles; post; qualifications;
Judgment 2023
90th Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The principle of equal pay for work of equal value applies to the grading of posts [...] Step increases within a grade are not contrary to the principle of equal pay."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PART II, SECTION 1, PARAGRAPHS 20 AND 30.1 WHO MANUAL
Keywords:
applicable law; equal treatment; general principle; increment; post classification; salary;
Judgment 2004
90th Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
Out of six candidates, only the complainant was interviewed by video conference. "While the Tribunal is not to be understood as saying that a video conference is not a perfectly acceptable method of conducting interviews, care must always be taken to ensure that no candidate is given a potentially unfair advantage by that process. Flying one person across the ocean to be interviewed while leaving a competitor from the same area at home is open to the interpretation of unequal treatment."
Keywords:
bias; competition; discretion; equal treatment; flaw; limits; procedural flaw; remand;
Consideration 20
Extract:
"The Tribunal wishes to emphasise that there is nothing wrong in having a policy aimed at gender parity. For too long women have been subjected to discrimination in appointments to senior posts which can be proved by statistics. But this policy cannot be achieved by setting quotas and by reverse discrimination, in other words, by the appointment for particular posts of women who are less qualified than men. This is contrary to [Staff] Regulation 4.3 which provides that selection shall be without regard to race, creed or sex'. The policy can be achieved by different means [...] but the bottom line must always be that the person best qualified should be appointed."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 4.3
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; equal treatment; priority; qualifications; remand; right; sex discrimination;
Judgment 1990
89th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The basic rules to be respected [in a competition] include the right of all applicants to equal treatment. The organisation may make no distinction between candidates on the basis of criteria - language, for example - which are not referred to in the entry requirements (see Judgment 1158, [...] under 4 et seq)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1158
Keywords:
candidate; competition; criteria; due process; equal treatment; knowledge of languages; qualifications;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In the competition, the English-speaking and French-speaking candidates were not in the same situation, so criteria were needed that took account of the differences. The matter becomes more complex if account is taken of candidates whose mother tongue is neither English nor French. [...] Since one of the requirements of the competition - and the post in question - was a good knowledge of the two main working languages, it was not unfair to provide for tests in one language only and apply an adequate correction factor to all candidates who were non-English-speaking. Such a solution redresses the balance and goes some way to ensuring equality between the candidates. Provided that it really is adequate, a correction factor does not impair the right to equal treatment."
Keywords:
candidate; compensatory measure; competition; criteria; difference; equal treatment; knowledge of languages; qualifications; safeguard;
Judgment 1968
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The [...] ground of alleged irreceivability[,that the decision to promote a colleague did not adversely affect the complainant,] is [...] untenable. [The two staff members] were at the same grade, in the same career stream, and both are entitled to expect that promotions will only be made fairly and objectively, based on merit and in accordance with law."
Keywords:
career; cause of action; decision; equal treatment; organisation's duties; patere legem; promotion; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1866
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant considers that he is discriminated against in comparison with his colleagues who live in towns where the organisation subsidises creche places. "The principle of equality of treatment only applies between staff members in a similar situation. In the material case, staff members whose place of residence is Munich or The Hague, where there are subsidised creches, benefit from the same treatment. But staff members, such as the complainant, who decide to reside in another location and do not wish to place their child in these subsidised creches, are not in a similar situation."
Keywords:
criteria; dependent child; difference; equal treatment; general principle; residence; social benefits;
Judgment 1815
86th Session, 1999
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Only those who are in the same or like case may claim equal treatment and of course only comparison will tell whether they are.
If the complainant wants the barriers to be lowered to let everyone over he fails to show any justification for that in the rules. As circular 334 explains, the purpose of the ILO's scheme for personal promotion is to put up the pay of staff with an unusually fine record when the rules do not ordinarily allow it. There is nothing discriminatory about such exceptional treatment. It is indeed only reasonable to keep it exceptional by setting high standards and the quota. The rules make the process of selection objective and fair and again conduce to equality of treatment.
The complainant fails too to show discrimination. He cites no instance of the grant of personal promotion to anyone in the same or like case, particularly by the criterion of consistently above-average performance.
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 1804
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
The promotion of Mr C., presented as the fulfilment of a promise made to him on recruitment, gave rise to a decision adopted on 7 December 1994. "Only that decision was notified to the staff. So the complainants, who were unaware of the promise, were in good faith in challenging the promotion on the grounds that it was in breach of the Rule it actually cited. So they were right in saying that Mr C. had been promoted to A4 even though he did not fully qualify under the [relevant] rules [...]. Because of the unusual circumstances in which Mr C. was promoted the complainants were also right to challenge the decision: the [Organization] had on the face of it failed to observe the general principle of equal treatment because in promoting Mr C. it did not abide by the requirements of the Service Regulations or by the criteria for promotion to which the complainants were themselves subject. The conclusion is that the complainants did suffer moral injury and each of them is entitled under that head to [compensation]".
Keywords:
appointment; breach; cause of action; condition; decision; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; grade; injury; moral injury; promise; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1789
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[The Organisation] rejected [the complainant's application] on the grounds that he was overqualified [for the job put up for competition]. Such grounds are wrong in law. Yet they are the only ones on which the [organisation] rejected the complainant, purporting to act under R II 1.03 [of the Staff Regulations]. It thereby denied the complainant his right to apply and to have his application properly considered. There was breach of equal treatment."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 1.03 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
breach; candidate; competition; criteria; discretion; equal treatment; flaw; grounds; procedure before the tribunal; right; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
