Judgment 3432
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that the EPO breached its duty of care towards him and successfully impugns the decision to award him a compensation which he considers inadequate.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he EPO should not have simply given effect to the approach of the Dutch authorities in relation to the rights of individuals who were both EPO employees and Dutch nationals. As just noted, it was highly arguable that the approach of the Dutch authorities was wrong. Accordingly, the EPO breached its duty of care to the complainant in simply advising him to follow the IND process, which plainly involved a bureaucratic pathway that was considerably less straightforward than the issuance of an identity card. The EPO should not have given this advice without having first, on the complainant’s behalf at least, pressed the Dutch authorities to issue his children with identity cards and to have done so by reference to the 1977 Seat Agreement.
Keywords:
duty of care; headquarters agreement; privileges and immunities;
Consideration 10
Extract:
While the jurisprudence of the Tribunal militates against the conclusive interpretation of an agreement such as the 1977 Seat Agreement (see for example Judgment 1182, under 6) with a view to determining the rights and obligations of the parties under such an agreement, it does not follow that the duty of care of the international organisation bound by such an agreement cannot be measured by reference to the possibly if not probably correct interpretation. As the EPO quite properly and appropriately notes in its reply, the jurisprudence of this Tribunal holds that an international organisation can, in appropriate cases, “employ its own considerable power and authority and influence to have the [national] authorities change their position” (see Judgment 2032, consideration 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1182, 2032
Keywords:
headquarters agreement; interpretation;
Judgment 3260
116th Session, 2014
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: After divorce proceedings with serious financial consequences, the complainant challenges the refusal to refer to the General Council of the WTO the issue of compatibility between the judgment of the Swiss Federal Court against him and certain provisions of the Headquarters Agreement and the Pension Plan Regulations.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; headquarters agreement;
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal is not competent to examine whether the Swiss Civil Code or the Swiss Federal Court decision violates the Headquarters Agreement and cannot entertain challenges to the decision itself. [...] However, as found in Judgment 3020, the Tribunal can consider an organisation’s application of its own provisions [...]. The Tribunal can also, as stated in Judgment 3105, under 5, consider the [organisation]’s application of the Headquarters Agreement."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; flaw; headquarters agreement; vested competence;
Judgment 3105
113th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"As the revised Seat Agreement is an international agreement, [...] the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to examine in any way its validity. [However] the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the application of a provision of the revised Seat Agreement".
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; flaw; headquarters agreement; international instrument; provision; vested competence;
Judgment 3020
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It does not lie within the Tribunal's competence, as defined in Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, to examine whether the practice followed by the Genevan tax authorities [...] was compatible with the provisions on the exemption enjoyed in principle by the complainant as a[n] official employed by an international organisation which has concluded a headquarters agreement with Switzerland [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; domestic law; exception; headquarters agreement; iloat statute; limits; official; organisation; status of complainant; tax; written rule;
Judgment 2178
94th Session, 2003
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
In its judgment on the complainant's first complaint the Tribunal ordered that he be compensated because he had been wrongfully terminated. In his application for review of that judgment "the complainant seeks compensation in respect of the loss of the tax immunities he enjoyed by virtue of the agreement between the [...] authorities [of the host country] and the [organisation]. Since the complainant has not been reinstated in his post, he is no longer entitled to those immunities. Nor is he entitled to compensation for the loss thereof: the tax regime governing the exemptions he may claim is solely a matter for the competent authorities of the host state, and the [organisation] cannot be held liable for direct or indirect taxes owed by the complainant."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2090
Keywords:
allowance; application for execution; domestic law; headquarters agreement; judgment of the tribunal; privileges and immunities; reconstruction of career; reinstatement; request by a party; tax;
Judgment 1001
68th Session, 1990
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants, who are employed by UNIDO in the general service category, seek the quashing of decisions setting their pay according to the new salary scales brought in as from 1 October 1987. They are objecting to the flat 2.4 per cent salary cut included in scales drawn up on the basis of an International Civil Service Commission recommendation to account for the so-called "commissary benefit". UNIDO Staff Regulation 6.5(a) says that the pay of staff in the general service category shall be based on "the best prevailing conditions of employment in the locality" (Flemming principle). The Tribunal holds that for the purpose of establishing parity with local pay the only relevant items are the ones defined in the Staff Regulations and financial rules of the organisation and paid out of its own funds. It follows that such a benefit as access to the commissary, which is provided for neither in the Staff Regulations nor in the financial rules and is a form of tax relief bestowed by the host country at no cost to the Organisation, may not count in a comparison of this nature. The Organization's decision to reduce salaries is unlawful and cannot stand. The cases are sent back to UNIDO for the recalculation of their pay.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNIDO STAFF REGULATION 6.5(A)
Keywords:
elements; enforcement; flaw; flemming principle; fringe benefits; general service category; headquarters agreement; icsc decision; privileges and immunities; reckoning; reduction of salary; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1000
68th Session, 1990
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants, who are employed by the IAEA in the general service category, seek the quashing of decisions setting their pay according to the new salary scales brought in as from 1 October 1987. They are objecting to the flat 2.4 per cent salary cut included in scales drawn up on the basis of an International Civil Service Commission recommendation to account for the so-called "commissary benefit". Annex II.B.1 of the Agency's Provisional Staff Regulations says that the pay of staff in the general service category shall be based on "the best prevailing conditions of employment in the locality" (Flemming principle). The Tribunal holds that for the purpose of establishing parity with local pay the only relevant items are the ones defined in the Staff Regulations and financial rules of the organisation and paid out of its own funds. It follows that such a benefit as access to the commissary, which is provided for neither in the Staff Regulations nor in the financial rules and is a form of tax relief bestowed by the host country at no cost to the organisation, may not count in a comparison of this nature. The Agency's decision to reduce salaries is unlawful and cannot stand. The cases are sent back to the Agency for the recalculation of their pay.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ANNEX II.B.1 OF THE IAEA PROVISIONAL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
elements; enforcement; flaw; flemming principle; fringe benefits; general service category; headquarters agreement; icsc decision; privileges and immunities; reckoning; reduction of salary; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 744
58th Session, 1986
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
Under the circumstances, the Tribunal shall be competent to hear the complaint, the complainant being entitled to assert a right granted to him under the headquarters agreement and which accrues to him by virtue of the terms of appointment.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; contract; enforcement; headquarters agreement; international instrument;
Judgment 617
53rd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Nor is the [organisation] liable for a direct and inevitable consequence of the protocol and the agreement. The complainant may not have been aware of what the texts said [...] but the administration cannot on that account be held liable for failing to give him express warning of his tax liability. It is obvious that tax liability depends not on warnings or information from the personnel office but on the [organisation's] official agreements with States."
Keywords:
duty to inform; headquarters agreement; organisation; privileges and immunities;
Judgment 372
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The privileges at issue derive from the headquarters agreement and have been expressly granted in the interests of the organisation. "Hence, according to the terms of the agreement [...] the privileges granted [...] and now claimed by the complainant were not a personal right, and so could not have been of decisive importance to him when he accepted appointment. Furthermore, he may not rely on an express guarantee in his contract; "new staff members should [...] have realised that the benefits depended" on an agreement with a state which could be amended at any time. He may not rely on an acquired right.
Keywords:
acquired right; contract; headquarters agreement; international instrument; member state; organisation's interest; privileges and immunities; provision; terms of appointment;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The organisation maintains that the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the staff under headquarters agreements are not granted for their personal advantage. They are granted in the organisations' interests and so the organisations alone may demand that they continue. The relationship between an international organisation and a state falls outside the competence of the Tribunal. "In fact the question is not one of competence. what has to be decided is whether or not the complainant is entitled to continue to enjoy certain privileges. That is a matter of substance and should be treated as such."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; headquarters agreement; organisation's interest; privileges and immunities; purpose;
Judgment 369
42nd Session, 1979
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Vide Judgment 372, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 372
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; headquarters agreement; organisation's interest; privileges and immunities; purpose;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
Vide Judgment 372, considerations 5 and 6.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 372
Keywords:
acquired right; contract; headquarters agreement; international instrument; member state; organisation's interest; privileges and immunities; provision; terms of appointment;
