Difference (603,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Difference
Total judgments found: 117
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 4848
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; difference; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; organisation's duties; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; staff member's interest; title of post;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no manifest error in the Appeal Board’s finding and conclusion that there was a material difference between the duties and responsibilities of the newly created position (Director of CMD) and those of the original position (Director of CID) as a result of the redefined organizational context, warranting advertising for the post of Director of CMD. Therefore, the Director General’s decision to extend the complainant’s contract by three months only in the soon to be abolished position of Director of CID was taken in proper exercise of his discretion.
Keywords:
abolition of post; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; manifest error; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The other and related decisions apparent from the letter of 31 January 2018 were the decisions to offer the complainant a three-month extension of his fixed-term appointment and to advertise the position of Director of the (about to be created) CMD. In his pleas, the complainant challenges the creation of this position contending, amongst other things, it was not materially different to the position he then formally occupied and was the product of a reorganisation which was illusory rather than substantial. It is unnecessary to repeat the various ways this is put by the complainant. However, mention should be made of a submission, which is tantamount to an allegation that the reorganisation was not a bona fide exercise of an undoubtedly wide discretionary power the executive head of an international organisation has to institute administrative and other structural changes within the organisation with consequential effects on existing posts, including their redefinition or abolition (see, for example, Judgments 4599, considerations 11 and 12, 4353, consideration 7, 3238, consideration 7, and 3169, consideration 7). This is, in substance, an allegation of bad faith. However, bad faith may not be presumed, and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see Judgments 4682, consideration 3, 4353, consideration 12, and 2800, consideration 21). In the present case, there is not a scintilla of evidence that the reorganisation decision did not involve a bona fide exercise of the wide discretionary power of the executive head. This plea is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3169, 3238, 4353, 4599, 4682
Keywords:
abolition of post; bad faith; burden of proof; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
Judgment 3203
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint is directed at the Secretary-General’s decision to refuse to recognise same-sex marriages.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is true that the case law of the Tribunal on the question of benefits for same-sex partners has developed in the last decade. This is illustrated by Judgment 2860. Indeed, there are opinions of individual judges concluding that staff rules denying access to dependency benefits to same-sex partners are unenforceable because they violate fundamental principles of law (see, for example, the dissenting opinion of Justice Hugessen in Judgment 2193)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2193, 2860
Keywords:
case law; definition; dependant; difference; enforcement; family allowance; interpretation; marital status; provision; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3126
113th Session, 2012
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
In the proceedings before the Advisory Board and in these proceedings, the organization has raised matters in purported justification of the complainant’s dismissal that go beyond the grounds specified in the notice of dismissal.
"This is not permissible. To allow that course would seriously infringe on a staff member’s right to be heard before a disciplinary measure is imposed."
Keywords:
advisory body; breach; difference; disciplinary measure; grounds; iloat; notice; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; termination of employment;
Judgment 3106
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The principle of freedom of association "precludes interference by an organisation in the affairs of its staff union or the organs of its staff union (see Judgment 2100, under 15). A staff union must be free to conduct its own affairs, to regulate its own activities and, also, to regulate the conduct of its members in relation to those affairs and activities. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[t]here could be no true freedom of association if the disapproval of the Director General, whether justified or not, of what was said [in an open letter issued in connection with a staff union referendum] could lead to disciplinary measures”. Further, an organisation must remain neutral when differences of opinion emerge within a staff union: it must not favour one group or one point of view over another. To do so would be to diminish the right of a staff union to conduct its own affairs and to regulate its own activities. Nor does an organisation have any legitimate interest in the actions of staff members in their dealings with their staff union and/or other staff union members with respect to the affairs and activities of the union. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[a] staff member’s conduct of [his] private life is not the concern of the Director-General [unless it] brings the Organization into disrepute”, and that trade union activities “likewise constitute an area that is ‘prima facie’ outside the Director- General’s jurisdiction”, although “there may be exceptional cases”."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2100
Keywords:
breach; competence; conduct; difference; disciplinary measure; executive head; freedom of association; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; outside activity; right; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 3090
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[WIPO's] employment relationship with the complainant always rested on short-term contracts [...]. These contracts were systematically renewed without any notable breaks, with the result that [...] the complainant pursued a career in the Organization for more than seven years, i.e. until the expiry of [her last] contract. This long succession of short-term contracts gave rise to a legal relationship between the complainant and WIPO which was equivalent to that on which permanent staff members of an organisation may rely. In considering that the complainant belonged to the category of short-term employees to whom the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules do not apply and who do not enjoy legal protection comparable to that enjoyed by other staff members, the defendant failed to recognise the real nature of its legal relationship with the complainant. In so doing it committed an error of law and misused the rules governing short-term contracts."
Keywords:
abuse of power; applicable law; career; contract; difference; extension of contract; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; permanent appointment; short-term; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; temporary-indefinite; terms of appointment;
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 3067
112th Session, 2012
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"[T]he very purpose of a conciliation procedure, which is to endeavour to resolve a dispute between the parties amicably, implies that the conciliator may have to take account of considerations of fairness or advisability. In this respect, such a procedure is fundamentally different from proceedings before the Tribunal, whose task is plainly not to explore possible settlements between the parties and which essentially gives a ruling in law."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; difference; equity; purpose; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2986
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 26
Extract:
"While the terms of a contract and some decisions will in principle give rise to acquired rights, this is not necessarily true of [the] provisions [of the Staff Regulations and Rules]."
Keywords:
acquired right; consequence; contract; decision; difference; effect; general principle; provision; staff regulations and rules;
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 2913
109th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
WHO requests the joinder of two complaints.
"The Tribunal finds that the two complaints were filed by two different staff members against two decisions which, although they bear the same date and are couched in almost identical terms, concern these staff members individually. Having regard in particular to the fact that the complaints are directed against disciplinary measures, the Tribunal considers that it must refuse the request for joinder (see Judgment 2343, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2343
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; date; difference; disciplinary measure; exception; identical facts; individual decision; joinder; request by a party;
Judgment 2891
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Following her reassignment, which in Judgment 2659 the Tribunal considered as a hidden disciplinary sanction, the complainant applied for her previous post. Her application was however not considered on the grounds that under Administrative Instruction No. 16 only applications from staff members who had serve in one position for a minimum of one year would be receivable. The complainant challenged the decision not to consider her application, arguing that it constituted discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal found in her favour and awarded her the compensation she had claimed.
"While this case stems from the previous complaint, the two cases are separate and distinct, being based on different facts and different administrative decisions. Each unlawful decision must have its own remedy. Therefore, the Organization's assertion that the damages already paid to the complainant must be taken into account in the calculation of damages in the present case is incorrect."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2659
Keywords:
complaint; damages; difference; new claim; new plea;
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 2868
108th Session, 2010
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 35-36
Extract:
"At the material time, the Centre had not formally adopted a procedure for the selection of candidates for vacant posts; however, it had developed a set of Guidelines."
"Although the Guidelines do not have the force of formally adopted regulations or rules, they are intended to foster a transparent selection procedure in which candidates are fairly evaluated against selection criteria. The process in the present case [...] undermines the credibility of the procedure and is an affront to the dignity of the complainant, who submitted his candidature in good faith and with the expectation that it would be considered in accordance with the procedure found in the Guidelines."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 2393
Keywords:
candidate; competition; criteria; difference; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2863
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was notified of the decision he impugns before the Tribunal on 11 March 2008 and filed his complaint against the Eurocontrol Agency on 11 June 2008. The Agency contends that the complainant had three months as from 11 March 2008 to submit a complaint to the Tribunal in accordance with Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency.
"The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that the conditions for the receivability of complaints submitted to it are governed exclusively by the provisions of its own Statute. An organisation which has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may not depart from the rules which it has thus accepted. Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal stipulates that '[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned or, in the case of a decision affecting a class of officials, after the decision was published'.
It is therefore unlawful for Article 93 to set a different time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal by specifying that this must be done within three months rather than within ninety days. In the instant case the complainant, who was notified of the impugned decision on 11 March 2008, had ninety days to refer the matter to the Tribunal. While he is quite right in arguing that this period of time began on the day after that on which he had received notification and not on the date of notification itself, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law, his complaint is nonetheless time-barred, since this ninety-day period expired on 10 June. His complaint filed on 11 June 2008 was lodged on the ninety-first day after the day following that on which he was notified of the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article 93(3) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
Keywords:
complaint; condition; date; date of notification; difference; flaw; general decision; iloat statute; individual decision; organisation's duties; publication; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time bar; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 2847
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant objects to the fact that the Agency has recovered the amount overpaid from the outset, i.e. over a five-year period, whereas in the opposite case, when the Agency makes a mistake to the detriment of an official, it usually benefits from rules of prescription which enable it greatly to reduce the amounts reimbursed.
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, a claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought - even in the absence of any provision in writing to this effect - in reasonable time (see Judgments 53, under 4, and 2565, under 7(c)). However [...] the five-year period concerned by the recovery of the overpayment [...] cannot be regarded in this case as an unreasonable length of time, particularly because the disputed reimbursement arises from concealment on the part of the complainant and because Eurocontrol did not fail to take the necessary steps to recover the sums in question."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 2565
Keywords:
accumulation; amount; breach; case law; dependent child; difference; domestic law; family allowance; injury; limits; misrepresentation; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; period; rate; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time bar;
Judgment 2836
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[A]lthough the Tribunal's case law requires that an official on probation be warned in a timely manner that his/her appointment might not be confirmed, it does not require that a decision not to renew a contract should rest on exactly the same criticisms as those of which the person concerned had previously been notified (see Judgments 1546 and 2162)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1546, 2162
Keywords:
case law; difference; duty to inform; grounds; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; warning;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[I]t is not necessarily contradictory for performance to be rated differently from one reporting period to the next (see, for example, Judgment 2162, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2162
Keywords:
difference; official; performance report; work appraisal;
Judgment 2833
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he Director-General departed from the Joint Advisory Appeals Board's recommendation. He was entitled to do so provided that he gave clear reasons for not following it, which he did. [...] From a formal point of view, therefore, the impugned decision is beyond criticism."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; condition; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; formal requirements; grounds; internal appeals body; recommendation; right;
Judgment 2790
106th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"A second decision whose purpose is identical to that of a previous decision may [...] constitute a new decision and set off a new time limit for an appeal if it provides further justification, relates to different issues or is based on new grounds."
Keywords:
decision; definition; difference; grounds; purpose; time limit;
Judgment 2742
105th Session, 2008
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"General principle dictates that a person cannot litigate the same issue in separate proceedings, much less in concurrent proceedings."
Keywords:
difference; general principle; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; right; settlement out of court;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
