Applicable law (177, 179, 687, 856, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 900, 663, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 645, 209, 211, 664, 213, 215, 230, 227, 228, 231, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 685, 229, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 732, 751, 949,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Applicable law
Total judgments found: 106
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 3135
113th Session, 2012
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Tribunal […] draws attention to the fact that, generally speaking, the terms of employment of staff members of international organisations may vary according to amendments of the existing staff regulations or staff rules and that such references to the original provisions as may be contained in their employment contracts do not prevent this.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; applicable law; terms of appointment;
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 3080
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[T]he case law of the Tribunal establishes that when the term "spouse" is used in an organisation's staff rules or regulations without being otherwise defined therein, it is not limited to individuals within a marriage but may also cover persons in other forms of union (see in particular Judgments 2760, under 4, and 2860, under 9). Thus, in several recent judgments concerning cases where the applicable provisions were couched in similar language, the Tribunal held that the organisations concerned had to recognise same-sex marriages (see Judgment 2590 or Judgment 2760 [...]) or unions in the form of registered partnerships when the relevant national law made it possible to consider persons in such unions as "spouses" (see Judgments 2549 and 2550, and Judgment 2860 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2590, 2760, 2860
Keywords:
applicable law; definition; domestic law; marital status; no provision; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3074
112th Session, 2012
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"[I]nternational organisations' staff members do not have a right to have all the conditions of employment laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career.
[M]ost of those conditions [can] be altered during [their] employment as a result of amendments to those provisions. Of course the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, according to the case law established in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official's situation to his or her detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2696 or 2986). The conditions for the payment of removal expenses, in particular a limit on the volume of household goods which may be shipped at the Organization's expense, plainly do not have this character [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986, 2089, 2682, 2696, 2986
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; applicable law; appointment; breach; career; condition; contract; date; exception; limits; official; personal effects; provision; removal expenses; right; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3034
111th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
This Tribunal is not bound by the case law of the European Union’s judicial bodies. It must further be noted that the legal context of this case law is different.
Keywords:
applicable law; case law of other tribunals; european union;
Judgment 2985
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"[T]he duty of care which an international organisation owes to its officials obviously does not mean that, as a matter of principle, it should abstain from making them subject to rules which are unfavourable to them."
Keywords:
applicable law; general principle; official; organisation's duties; written rule;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2459, under 9, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of the principles of good faith, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459
Keywords:
acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; organisation's duties; provision; request by a party;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"In accordance with these principles, an individual decision affecting an official becomes binding on the organisation which has taken it and thus creates rights for the person concerned as soon as it has been notified to him or her in the manner prescribed by the applicable rules (see, for example, Judgments 2112, under 7(a), and 2201, under 4). As a general rule, such a decision may therefore be reversed only if two conditions are satisfied: the decision must be unlawful and it must not yet have become final (see Judgments 994, under 14, or 1006, under 2). Furthermore, where an individual decision does not create rights, provided that the principle of good faith is respected, it may be reversed at any time (see Judgment 587, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 587, 994, 1006, 2112, 2201
Keywords:
applicable law; binding character; condition; decision; good faith; individual decision; promotion; repeal; right; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 2860
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9, 13, 17, 19 and 21
Extract:
The complainant, a French national, entered into a "Civil Solidarity Contract" (PACS) under French law with his same-sex partner. The FAO refused to recognise his partner as his dependent spouse for the purpose of dependency benefits.
"The Tribunal rejects the FAO's assertion that under the Staff Regulations and Rules, the status of 'spouse' can only arise in the context of a marriage. It is now well established in the case law that, unless the term 'spouse' is otherwise defined in the staff regulations, it is not limited to individuals within a marriage. It may also arise from other types of unions. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 2760, under 4, in the absence of a definition of 'spouse' in the relevant regulatory provisions, 'same-sex marriages' [...] or unions in the form of 'registered partnerships' [have] to be recognised by these organisations where the applicable national legislation enable[s] persons who ha[ve] contracted such unions to be regarded as 'spouses' (see Judgments 2549 and 2550)'. (See also Judgment 2643, under 6.)"
"Accordingly, as the Tribunal also observed in Judgment 2549, under 11, it is necessary to determine whether in the light of the provisions of French law, the complainant and his partner should be considered as 'spouses' within the meaning of the FAO Staff Regulations and Rules."
"[The materials of the file] demonstrate that just as in a marriage relationship, PACS partners are required to provide each other with financial support and are jointly liable for debts incurred for daily living. In matters such as immigration, social security, health insurance, home leave and relocation of civil servants, special leave for persons bound by a PACS, inheritance fees and income taxes, PACS partners are treated the same as spouses in a marriage. In a significant recent development, reference is made to the existence of the PACS and the name of the partners in the official register of personal status of individuals who have entered into a PACS, just as marital status is recorded for married persons."
"Not only does a PACS change the legal status of the partners in relation to each other, but it also changes the legal status of the partners in relation to the State in a variety of ways enumerated earlier and in ways that mirror the status of married couples in relation to the State. Just as in a marriage, a PACS establishes a legal relationship of mutual dependence. Further, and at the very least, in the absence of a contrary provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules, the principle of non-discrimination requires that for the purposes of dependency benefits the term 'spouse' be interpretated as applicable to a relationship of mutual dependence under the relevant national law."
"In conclusion, having regard to the materials filed in this proceeding, the Tribunal is satisfied that the provisions of French law give rise to a relationship of mutual dependence, and accordingly, the complainant and his partner must be regarded as 'spouses' under the Staff Regulations and Rules. In these circumstances, the Director-General erred in refusing to recognise the status of the complainant and his partner for the purpose of dependency benefits and, therefore, his decision will be set aside."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2643, 2760
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; dependant; domestic law; family allowance; marital status; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2760
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, a Canadian national, married a person of the same sex, as she is permitted to do under the law in force in Canada. She immediately informed the Agency of her new marital status and applied for the dependency benefits to which staff members with a spouse are eligible, but her application was rejected. The defendant points out that, for the purpose of applying its Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, it has a definition of the term "spouse" which refers only to the partners of a union between persons of opposite sex, since the Guide to Dependency Benefits, which was drawn up for the staff, indicates that the term "'[s]pouse' for all purposes of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules is defined to mean the husband or wife". "But this mere information document, which was prepared by the Administration and has no normative value, clearly cannot prescribe the adoption of a restrictive definition which does not appear in the applicable texts themselves.
Furthermore, while the Tribunal notes that the same definition was also given in a Notice to the Staff of 11 July 2005, that document likewise could not narrow the scope of the concept of 'spouse' to which the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules refer. Although the secretariat of an organisation may always circulate a Notice to the Staff to clarify certain provisions of its staff regulations and rules, such a notice cannot impose on staff any restrictive conditions other than those stipulated in the provisions themselves."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Guide to Dependency Benefits
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; binding character; condition; definition; dependant; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; information note; limits; marital status; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purpose; refusal; request by a party; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2672
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"A staff association or union is, in essence, a voluntary association of employees and/or others in a relationship pursuant to which they perform services by way of personal exertion, who have agreed together to act collectively [...] to protect and promote their industrial interests. The powers of the association may extend to the protection and promotion of the industrial interests of those who are eligible to belong to the association. Many countries require other formalities including, sometimes, registration under the relevant domestic law. Those laws cannot apply to a staff association or union the membership of which is restricted to international civil servants. However, that is not to say that no formality is necessary for the formation of a staff association or union representing international civil servants.
For the creation of a staff association or union representing international civil servants, there must, at the very least, be some means of identifying the agreement voluntarily to associate for the purpose of protecting and promoting the industrial interests of members, the terms of that agreement and the means by which it may be varied, both in relation to individual employees and the purposes or objects of the association. [...] [B]ecause it is a voluntary association, there must be an agreement as to the persons by or through whom the association acts, the means by which those persons are selected or elected, the matters in respect of which they have authority to act and the powers that they have in relation to those matters. In the absence of agreement as to each of those matters, the agreement to associate would, in accordance with general principles of law, be void for uncertainty. And to have an agreement covering those matters, there must be rules incorporated in a charter, a statute or some other document to which the members subscribe and by which they agree to be bound."
Keywords:
applicable law; collective bargaining; collective rights; effect; freedom of association; freedom of speech; general principle; staff claim; staff representative; staff union agreement; written rule;
Judgment 2643
103rd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, a British national, entered into a "Civil Solidarity Contract" (PACS) under French law with his same-sex partner and had his partnership registered under the Civil Partnership Act applicable to British citizens. The ITU refused to recognise his partner as his dependent spouse for determination of the benefits pertaining to that status. "The Tribunal has accepted in several recent judgments that same-sex marriages (see Judgment 2590) and unions taking the form of 'registered partnerships' must be recognised where the national legislation applicable to the staff member concerned allows persons who have contracted such unions to be treated as 'spouses' (see Judgments 2549 and 2550). The important difference between the present case and those previously decided lies in the fact that the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules explicitly define the concept of spouses as denoting husband and wife in a large number of provisions, and that, contrary to the situations examined in Judgments 2549 and 2550, the ITU refuses to accept that same-sex unions lawfully contracted under the national legislation of the official concerned may be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. It follows that the defendant was not wrong in asserting that, in the light of the case law and the applicable Regulations and Rules as they currently stand, the Secretary-General was barred from giving the term 'spouse' the broad interpretation requested."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2590
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; marital status; provision; purpose; refusal; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2636
103rd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The terms of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal [...] dictate that various [...] claims for relief are not receivable. The claim that the Tribunal make appropriate orders to enable investigation of the complainant's allegations by the Swiss authorities falls into this category. The complainant's rights are those that derive from the terms of his appointment, the applicable Staff Regulations and those general legal principles recognised by the Tribunal as applicable to all international civil servants. None of these confer any right on the complainant to rely on Swiss law in his claims against WIPO and, consequently, there is no power in the Tribunal to make any order in that regard."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
applicable law; claim; competence of tribunal; contract; domestic law; general principle; iloat statute; inquiry; investigation; official; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; staff regulations and rules; 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 2533
101st Session, 2006
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant suffered a workplace injury at the Organization premises. The results of this seemingly minor accident were catastrophic and the complainant is now permanently and totally disabled and suffers from a rare illness, which has extended up both of the complainant's legs and requires him to use a wheelchair.
"It is common for a mature legal system to provide compensation on a 'no fault' basis to employees who suffer workplace injuries; the law of the international civil service can do no less."
Keywords:
applicable law; general principle; handicapped person; international civil service principles; invalidity; material damages; official; organisation's duties; professional accident; service-incurred;
Judgment 2513
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes [...] that in the absence of special circumstances such as a compelling need to preserve confidentiality, internal appellate bodies such as the [Joint Appeals Board] must strictly observe the rules of due process and natural justice and that those rules normally require a full opportunity for interested parties to be present at the hearing of witnesses and to make full answer in defence."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; applicable law; confidential evidence; due process; exception; general principle; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; testimony;
Judgment 2493
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."
Keywords:
applicable law; collective rights; competence; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
Judgment 2450
99th Session, 2005
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]here is no rule or general principle that obliges an international organisation to reimburse its staff for taxes payable outside the host country pursuant to legislation which is not that of the host country."
Keywords:
applicable law; domestic law; general principle; headquarters; organisation; organisation's duties; refund; staff regulations and rules; tax;
Judgment 2411
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"It is not acceptable that the Administration has attempted to upgrade its practice to the status of law when the law itself says nothing of the sort; nor can the practice of an organisation be invoked to deny its officials their written rights. Fairness, reasonableness, and adherence to the known facts outweigh in this case the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This approach indeed upholds that principle. The complainant did not act against any fundamental tenet of the law; he was simply late – yet not unreasonably late, as well as being in good faith – in claiming his rights, whereas no express time limits are set out in the rules."
Keywords:
applicable law; duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules; no provision; organisation's duties; practice; right; written rule;
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;
Judgment 2221
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"It is well settled that a promotion decision is a discretionary decision which can only be challenged on limited grounds. Moreover, it is settled that mere satisfaction of necessary criteria does not ordinarily confer a right to promotion. [...] It follows that the [competent authorities] were entitled to have regard, in determining whether to backdate the complainant's promotion, to all matters pertaining to his work performance, [including] his staff reports, even though the [applicable] guidelines made no reference to such reports."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; case law; competence; consequence; criteria; decision; discretion; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation; performance report; promotion; qualifications; right;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
