|
|
 |
|
|
Effective date (31, 32,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Effective date
Total judgments found: 29
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4685
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied rejection of her requests concerning the effective date of her promotion and the within-grade salary increment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4186, consideration 6:
“It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the grounds for reviewing the classification of a post are limited and ordinarily a classification decision would only be set aside if it was taken without authority, was made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2). Indeed, the classification of posts involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts, and it is not the Tribunal’s role to undertake this process of evaluation (see, for example, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation (or of the person acting on his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).”
These principles apply to both the decision to reclassify (with possible promotion) or to refuse to reclassify as well as to the date from which the reclassification should take place.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 4186
Keywords:
effective date; post classification; promotion; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; effective date; promotion;
Judgment 4491
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her with immediate effect for serious misconduct.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The principal relief sought by the complainant is an order for reinstatement. No specific submission is made by the EPO in its pleas that, in the event that the complainant demonstrates her dismissal was unlawful, she nonetheless should not be reinstated. It is, in the circumstances, the appropriate relief (see Judgment 4043, consideration 25). The original decision to dismiss her and the impugned decision should be set aside. The complainant will be reinstated as from the date of public delivery of this judgment. The Tribunal has approached the determination of the date of reinstatement, in the unusual circumstances of this case, having regard to the point made by the Disciplinary Committee, namely that the complainant should have been more forthcoming about her personal situation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4043
Keywords:
effective date; reinstatement;
Judgment 4474
133rd Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application to review Judgment 4360.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The fresh evidence adduced in the surrejoinder was [...] deployed by the Tribunal to assess and decide what relief was appropriate. Necessarily that decision must be made by reference to facts and circumstances known at the time of the assessment, which may include facts and circumstances that were not known when the decision to dismiss was made. Very commonly this would entail an assessment, in a case of unlawful dismissal, whether an order of reinstatement was appropriate. That, in turn, often raises for consideration the passage of time between the dismissal and when a remedy is being considered, including the possible prejudice to the organisation if reinstatement were ordered. While this case was extremely unusual if not extraordinary, it simply cannot be suggested that the fresh evidence in this case was not relevant to remedy. It was and that was the use made of it by the Tribunal.
Keywords:
effective date; evidence; reinstatement; surrejoinder;
Judgment 2625
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant, a retired civil servant, asks the Tribunal to declare unlawful some measures applying to pensioners. "The provisions in question are regulatory texts applying to all retired employees of the Office. Since they entered into force long ago the complainant may challenge their lawfulness only by appealing against a decision applying those provisions which actually causes present damage to his personal interests (see in particular Judgments 1852, under 3, 2379, under 5, and 2459, under 7(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2379, 2459
Keywords:
cause of action; claim; effective date; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; provision; retirement; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2086
92nd Session, 2002
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
In order to be awarded a personal promotion the complainant must have completed 18 years of continuous service under a fixed-term or permanent contract. "The [organisation] is arguing that [...] in determining whether the complainant fulfilled [such a] requirement [...] reference must be made to clauses of the contracts which came into force unopposed, [including] short-term contracts [...] The approach is too rigid [...] The issue was [not] one of applying or interpreting the complainant's early appointments [...] It is a matter of applying a rule which is currently in force and which concerns the legal nature of former contractual relationships between the parties. In other words, in the light of the current rule, what type of appointment did the early contracts establish? It should be noted that the name they were given will not necessarily express the actual relationship".
Keywords:
applicable law; condition; contract; criteria; definition; effective date; enforcement; fixed-term; interpretation; permanent appointment; personal promotion; provision; reckoning; short-term; working hours;
Judgment 2076
91st Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant was promoted with retroactive effect. "The complainant claims interest on the amounts the organization owes him. [Since it] agreed to promote him to G.5 with retroactive effect to 1 September 1997 [...] it should have paid him each month from that date the salary and entitlements corresponding to grade G.5. He is therefore entitled to interest, which the Tribunal sets at 8 per cent a year on those monthly earnings from each due date as from 1 September 1997."
Keywords:
date; debt; effective date; grade; interest on damages; promotion; request by a party; salary; tribunal;
Judgment 2006
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant contends that based on a recently published circular, his promotion should have been made retroactive to the date he took up his new duties. "However, to give retroactive effect to [the] circular would not be possible since according to customary methods of interpretation any action prescribed in a text is deemed to be of immediate effect. There is no presumption of retroactive effect.' (Judgment 742 [...]). Indeed, there can be no retroactive application of the rights sought by the complainant, and his status results only from the publication of the circular in question. The charge of arbitrariness would be tenable if there were no basis for applying the circular to the case of the complainant, but, as shown above, the scope of the text explicitly covered his situation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 742
Keywords:
bias; date; effective date; general principle; interpretation; non-retroactivity; promotion; publication; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2003
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainants did not challenge the initial decisions denying them an installation grant and therefore "those decisions became final and the complainants were barred from challenging them by filling up application forms years later and claiming the quashing of the decisions refusing them by implication the allowance for which their assignment to Maastricht made them eligible. The Joint Committee for Disputes was right to cite the principle of legal certainty which must govern relations between an organisation and its staff' and to note that it was not possible to [exempt] the persons concerned from the time bar, which the Tribunal is in any event bound to apply since it is mandatory'."
Keywords:
binding character; decision; effective date; exception; iloat statute; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1916
88th Session, 2000
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant argued that the date the contract enters into force is not negotiable - it must be the date the parties actually sign the contract. "The Tribunal does not agree with the complainant. A contract is concluded when there is a firm and definitive unity of intentions between the contracting parties; it generally takes the form, particularly where, as in this case, it consists of a contract by correspondence, of an offer made by one party followed by the acceptance of the offer by the other party. [...] But in certain instances, the contract may be held to be concluded, by interpretation of the intentions of the parties, even in the absence of agreement on the subsidiary points."
Keywords:
acceptance; date; effective date; general principle; intention of parties; law of contract; offer;
Judgment 1886
87th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant accepted an offer for a permanent contract which provided that the contract would be governed by the Staff Rules and Regulations valid as of 1 January 1997 (which would reduce his expatriation allowance). "By confining himself to the phrase 'without prejudice of my acquired rights', the complainant showed that he had no reason in principle to refuse the offer made to him, but that he merely wished to maintain his right to continue receiving the expatriation allowance at the former rate [...]. [I]n view of the above, and the fact that the [organisation] neither modified, nor proposed to modify its offer, despite the complainant's reservation, it has to be deduced that the employment relationship between the complainant and the [organisation] is based on a contract concluded after 1 January 1997. It is therefore a priori governed by the Staff Rules and Regulations which were in force at that date [...]."
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; contract; date; effective date; intention of parties; non-resident allowance; offer; permanent appointment; rate; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1439
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The grant of promotion with effect from [a given date] is an administrative decision which the complainant was entitled to challenge".
Keywords:
cause of action; date; decision; effective date; promotion;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The organization refused to promote the complainant with effect from the date at which he met the material conditions on the grounds that he had been subject to disciplinary action. The Tribunal quashed the disciplinary action in an earlier judgment and the complainant finally got his promotion, albeit with some delay. The Tribunal rejects his claim to moral damages. "The delay in granting him promotion caused him no moral injury because the organisation acted in good faith in originally deciding not to promote him."
Keywords:
date; delay; disciplinary measure; effective date; good faith; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; organisation; promotion; refusal;
Judgment 1388
78th Session, 1995
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent promotion is at the discretion of the organisation, which must be free to grant or withhold it in accordance with objective working requirements. It follows that any grant of promotion at the time of retirement is inherently contrary to the organisation's interests because by then there can no longer be any question of taking on the higher level of responsibility that promotion entails."
Keywords:
case law; date; discretion; effective date; organisation's interest; promotion; retirement; right; separation from service;
Judgment 1207
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal need only observe, as it has often said before (for example in Judgments 940 [...], 1016 [...] and 1025 [...]), that no staff member has any right to promotion. Even if he is expecting it, as the complainant was, he may not demand that management grant him the benefit of it from any particular date."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 940, 1016, 1025
Keywords:
career; case law; date; effective date; organisation's duties; promotion; right;
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"A distinction must be drawn between the upgrading of the complainant's post and his own promotion. Any regrading is bound to affect an organisation's structure and will therefore depend on the way in which work is organised. [...]
The fact that pending the outcome he was fulfilling duties pertaining to a more highly graded post that did not yet exist does not entitle him to compensation, let alone retroactive promotion. [...]"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 940, 1016, 1025
Keywords:
administrative delay; date; effective date; organisation's interest; personal promotion; post; post classification; promotion;
Judgment 1012
68th Session, 1990
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The decision to reduce pay at Eurocontrol was confirmed on 12 November 1987. "Though the pay slips [giving effect to the reduction] are plainly unlawful because the Commission's decision still had to come into effect, they apply only to the period they cover and cannot be treated as giving effect to a decision that had not yet become final. Not a single complainant has challenged an individual decision subsequent to 12 November 1987. The Tribunal is therefore bound, regrettably, to declare the claims irreceivable insofar as they object to future reductions in pay."
Keywords:
application for quashing; effective date; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; payslip; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary;
Summary
Extract:
On 7 July 1987 Eurocontrol's Permanent Commission decided provisionally to reduce pay by 0.7 per cent with effect from 1 July 1986. The Commission's decision was not confirmed until 12 November 1987. The complainants are challenging the pay slips they got for July, August and September 1987 which indicated a reduction in pay backdated to 1 July 1986. The Tribunal holds that the pay slips, which were issued before the commission's decision entered into force, have no basis in law and must be set aside insofar as they cause the complainants injury.
Keywords:
decision; effective date; legislative body; non-retroactivity; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 990
68th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The General Assembly of the United Nations brought in a new scale of pensionable remuneration as from 1 January 1985. The scale, provided for in Article 3.1.1 of the Staff Regulations, did not come into force until 1 April 1985. The complainant's pension, however, was reckoned according to the new scale between 1 January and 31 March 1985. The Tribunal holds that "the ILO is undoubtedly bound [...] by the provisions of the Staff Regulations so long as they remain in force and is therefore liable towards the complainant for the breach of them. That its difficulty is due to the stand taken by the fund cannot alter its liability as employer towards its staff."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.1.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; difference; effective date; fund regulations; liability; organisation; payment; pension; pensionable remuneration; provision; reduction of salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; unjspf;
Summary
Extract:
The General Assembly of the United Nations brought in a new, lower scale of pensionable remuneration as from 1 January 1985. That scale, provided for in Article 3.1.1 of the ILO Staff Regulations, did not come into force for officials serving in the organization until 1 April 1985. The complainant's pension was nonetheless reckoned according to the new scale between 1 January and 31 March 1985. She challenges the Director-General's implied rejection of her internal complaint seeking to have her pension reckoned according to the old scale up to 31 March 1985 or, failing that, compensation. The Organization submits that the measure had come to her attention through various channels and that the complaint was out of time. The Tribunal holds that the Staff Regulations contained an explicit provision which set out the staff's rights. The staff were not told of any valid ilo decision not to abide by the Staff Regulations. The Organization's contention that the complaint is irreceivable is mistaken.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.1.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint; difference; effective date; fund regulations; pension; pensionable remuneration; provision; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; scale; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 963
66th Session, 1989
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Any authority is bound by the rules it has itself issued until it amends or repeals them. The general principle is that rules govern only what is to happen henceforth, and it is binding on any authority since it affords the basis for relations between the parties in law. furthermore, a rule is enforceable only from the date on which it is brought to the notice of those it applies to."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; effective date; enforcement; general principle; non-retroactivity; patere legem; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 953
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2, Summary
Extract:
The complainant was promoted from grade A.2 to grade A.3 as from 1 March 1987. He submits that the promotion should have taken effect as from 1 August 1985, the date by which his credited experience had come to eight years, in accordance with point ii.2 of Circular 144. However, as required by Article 49[7] of the EPO Service Regulations, the complainant also had to have at least two years' service in his grade in the office in order to qualify for promotion. As the complainant did not meet the latter requirement until 1 March 1987, the Tribunal held that the impugned decision was correct.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 49.7 OF EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS; POINT II.2 OF EPO CIRCULAR 144 OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1985
Keywords:
condition; date; effective date; grade; professional experience; promotion; seniority;
Judgment 860
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
As to identity in the cause of action, Mr [A.] notes that the Tribunal had in part rejected the complainants' plea of breach of good faith on the grounds that they had taken up duty after the new criteria had taken effect. Mr [A.] contends that this reasoning does not apply to him insofar as he had taken up duty before the change in rules. The Tribunal acknowledges that there is on this point a new cause of action; however it holds on the merits that a staff member has no right, save in exceptional cases, to demand that the rules on promotion in force at the time of appointment should never be modified.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 657
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; application for review; appointment; date; effective date; general principle; good faith; practice; promotion; provision; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; terms of appointment;
Judgment 845
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant claims 'rapid promotion' by virtue of the exception provided for in paragraph 64 of document CA/PV 10 concerning EPO staff members who were recruited before 1 January 1981. Inasmuch as the complainant was appointed after that date, he is not entitled to the promotion.
Keywords:
administrative instruction; appointment; date; effective date; enforcement; personal promotion; promotion;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Even if an examiner appointed after 1 January 1981 had been promoted contrary to the rapid promotion rule in CA/20/80, that is no reason for unlawfully promoting the complainant. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 614, a complainant may not rely on unlawful treatment which conferred benefit on other staff members: equality in law does not mean equality in the breach of it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 614
Keywords:
appointment; date; difference; effective date; equal treatment; exception; flaw; general principle; personal promotion; promotion;
Judgment 742
58th Session, 1986
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"According to customary methods of interpretation any action prescribed in a text is deemed to be of immediate effect. There is no presumption of retroactive effect."
Keywords:
date; effective date; international instrument; interpretation; non-retroactivity;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
