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 4088
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign him to the General Service category upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment to a position in the Professional category.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant provides no evidence that shows that his appointment in the P category was not exceptionally extended in circumstances in which he was in a like situation to other staff members but was treated differently (see Judgment 3298, under 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3298
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 4073
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the reduction of the rate of the expatriate premium paid to her.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[The complainant has not] provided evidence which proves that the reduction in the expatriate premiums she received from 1 January 2015 onwards created discrimination or inequality between herself and other Global Fund staff, as she contends, in circumstances in which she was in a like situation to other staff members but was treated differently (see Judgment 3298, under 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3298
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4067
127th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his contract.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The third argument is that the decision concerning the complainant involved discrimination and unequal treatment. This principle is engaged and can be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and, if need be, give rise to redress on condition that it is based on precise and proven facts which establish the discrimination has occurred (as to its operation in the context of the OPCW, see Judgment 2660, consideration 24, and also, more generally, Judgment 4027, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2660, 4027
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4057
127th Session, 2019
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reduce her pension on the basis of a reduction of the consumer price index.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant appears to argue that she (like other recipients of the pension presumably) is being treated unequally because of a practice to freeze salaries of serving staff rather than reduce them even if the methodology for salary calculation and adjustment might otherwise suggest a downward adjustment. However these two classes of individuals are not in the same position in fact or in law (see, for example, Judgment 4029, consideration 20). The former are not members of staff, the latter are.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4029
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 4029
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him the two-step within-grade increase which, he argues, WHO ought to have granted him at the time of his appointment under a fixed-term contract.
Consideration 20
Extract:
[T]he principle of equality requires that persons in the same position in fact and in law must be treated equally. The failure to grant the complainant the two-step within-grade increase that at the material time was given to other long-term short-term staff members, who were in the same position as the complainant, constitutes unequal treatment and entitles the complainant to an award of material damages.
Keywords:
equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4027
126th Session, 2018
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness and outcome of several competitions in which he participated.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its case law according to which, “the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity” (see, for example, Judgment 3900, under 12). In light of this case law, the recommended candidate, who has already been preselected by the supervisors in accordance with paragraph 21 of the Rules of Procedure of the Appointment and Promotion Board, is not in the same situation as the other short-listed candidates. It is natural that this candidate’s curriculum vitae should be submitted to the appointing authority to elucidate the proposal made in her or his regard. The plea of a breach of the principle of equal treatment is therefore unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3900
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 4022
126th Session, 2018
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the WTO’s decision to grant him local recruitment status upon joining the Organization.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
With respect to the second ground, namely that the decision subjected him to unequal treatment and was therefore an abuse of authority, the Tribunal notes that in Judgment 2313, consideration 5, it is stated as follows:
“The principle of equality requires that persons in like situations be treated alike and that persons in relevantly different situations be treated differently. In most cases involving allegations of unequal treatment, the critical question is whether there is a relevant difference warranting the different treatment involved. Even where there is a relevant difference, different treatment may breach the principle of equality if the different treatment is not appropriate and adapted to that difference.” [...]
The five persons were not in the same situation in fact and in law as the complainant. [...] Inasmuch as [...] there was no violation of the principle of equal treatment, the complaint is unfounded and will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2313
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 4018
126th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision no longer to pay him an expatriation allowance.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The different rules applying to the two categories of official concerned is of course warranted by the fact that assignment to a foreign country generally entails more difficulties when the official concerned has no previous connections with that country than when he has previously lived or worked there (see, in this connection, Judgment 2893, under 13 and 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2893
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 4016
126th Session, 2018
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complaint is unfounded on the merits. Paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the GCE does not violate the general principle of non-discrimination. The Tribunal accepts that air traffic controllers are in a different situation than other servants subject to the GCE (their work situation is also different from that of pilots). The different treatment for this category of servants and, specifically, the lower retirement age, which was 55 at the relevant time, is justified by the specificity of their work and the contested provision is not unreasonable or unjustified, and therefore is not discriminatory. It must be taken into account that: (a) the ordinary activity of air traffic controllers is particularly stressful and mentally demanding, they are also subject to difficult working conditions and to shift work; (b) the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre operates in a complex air space with a high traffic; and (c) possibly, in addition, a low retirement age enables Eurocontrol to recruit air traffic controllers more readily over time. The question of non-discrimination and that of a proper evaluation of the specific nature of the work in question, and therefore of its exigencies, are linked. In this evaluation, which is scientifically based, Eurocontrol’s evaluations should be accepted unless they are shown to be unreliable having regard to current scientific knowledge. In the present case, for the reasons considered above, the evaluations on which the provision in question is based fall within the range of acceptability. [...]
The establishment of a “normal” retirement age for a category of officials is a common rule in international organisations and in national laws. The fact that different rules based on the same or on different criteria (e.g. criteria referring to “a case-by-case basis” or mixed criteria) are established, does not undermine the conclusion that a rule that falls within the range of acceptability and reliability is not unlawful.
Keywords:
equal treatment; retirement;
Judgment 4000
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post at grade P-4.
Considerations 7-9
Extract:
In Judgment 3589, in which the reclassification of a post was also challenged, the Tribunal stated the following, in consideration 4:
“It is well established 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, had been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, was made having overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion had been drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2). This is because 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 the organisation (or the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).”
As to the main factors that are to be taken into account in a reclassification process, the Tribunal has relevantly stated as follows, in Judgment 3764, consideration 6:
“It is for the competent body and, ultimately, the Director-General to determine each staff member’s grade. Several criteria are used in this exercise. Thus, when a staff member’s duties attach to various grades, only the main ones are taken into account. Moreover, the classification body does not rely solely on the text of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and the job description but also considers the abilities and degree of responsibility required by each. In all cases grading a post requires detailed knowledge of the conditions in which the incumbent works.”
The classification of a post involves an evaluation of the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post based upon the job description. It is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see, for example, Judgment 591, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 591, 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589
Keywords:
equal treatment; post classification; reclassification;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant claims that he was subjected to unequal treatment in the reclassification exercise. However, he has not established that he was treated differently from any other staff member who was similarly situated in fact and in law (see, for example, Judgment 3912, under 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3912
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 3952
125th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants impugn the Director-General’s decision not to grant them a special increment beyond the maximum salary attaching to their individual grades.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[A]ccording to consistent precedent, “there cannot be equality in unlawfulness” (see, for example, Judgments 3450, under 11, and 3782, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3450, 3782
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; equal treatment;
Judgment 3939
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant submits that he was the victim of discrimination because the President of the ISAU who held office during the same period had been retained in service beyond the statutory retirement age. However, quite apart from the fact that the extension of that person’s appointment had been granted, not as requested by him for the full length of the outstanding term of office, but only for six months mainly in order to enable him to deal with day-to-day matters, the President and the Treasurer of the ISAU are not in an identical situation with regard to the application of Staff Regulation 9.5. Article V of the Constitution and Article XII of the Rules of Procedure of the Association make the President of the ISAU the most senior officer of the Association’s Executive and her or his responsibilities are very different to those of the Treasurer whose duties are of a less sensitive nature for the Association. Moreover, it is plain from the file that, unlike the Treasurer, the President was released from all official duties in order to be able to devote himself on a full-time basis to his duties as an officer of the ISAU, which again means that the two officials were not in the same situation with regard to the Organization’s staff management policy.
At best, the position of these two persons could be said to be somewhat similar, but it was far from being absolutely identical. For this reason, the fact that their respective requests received different responses cannot be deemed discriminatory in any way.
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the Tribunal has already emphasised, it is in the interests of an international organisation to ensure that the trade unions or associations representing its staff operate in good conditions (see Judgment 496, under 17). Hence, in order to determine whether retaining an official in service beyond the age of retirement is in the organisation’s interests, it is necessary to take account of any staff representative work carried out by the person in question (see, with respect to a similar case, Judgment 3521, under 1 to 3 and 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 496, 3521
Keywords:
age limit; equal treatment; organisation's interest; retirement; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 3934
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Indeed, although differences in treatment with regard to extensions of appointment beyond the statutory retirement age may certainly be justified by the particular circumstances of individual cases, the Tribunal cannot but note that other staff of the Office benefited at that time from the rather liberal use that was being made of the discretion to grant extensions, which is in stark contrast to the rigorous examination to which the complainant’s request was subjected.
Keywords:
age limit; equal treatment; extension beyond retirement age;
Judgment 3917
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that it has consistently held that the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194, under 6(a), 2313, under 5, 3029, under 14, or 3787, under 3). With regard to reassignment, WHO Headquarters staff are not in an identical or similar situation to non-Headquarters staff.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 3916
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that it has consistently held that the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194, under 6(a), 2313, under 5, 3029, under 14, or 3787, under 3). With regard to reassignment, WHO Headquarters staff are not in an identical or similar situation to non-Headquarters staff.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 3912
125th Session, 2018
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 15
Extract:
There is no evidence that the reclassification exercise was conducted in breach of the principles of fairness or of the rules of the ICGEB. There is no evidence that in the conduct of the reclassification exercise the complainant was treated unequally to any other staff member who was in the same situation as she was in (see, for example, Judgment 3868, consideration 6, concerning the principle of equal treatment).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3868
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 3902
125th Session, 2018
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay him the indemnity due in the event of the closure of the CDE.
Consideration 5
Extract:
It should be remembered that, according to firm precedent, “the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194 under 6(a), 2313, under 5, or 3029, under 14)” (see Judgment 3787, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 3900
125th Session, 2018
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her contract owing to the closure of the CDE and the terms and conditions of that termination.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[R]eference must be made to the Tribunal’s consistent precedent that “the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194, under 6(a), 2313, under 5, or 3029, under 14).” (See Judgment 3787, under 3.)
The Tribunal is of the opinion that staff members who signed an agreement are in different legal situation to that of their colleagues, which justifies the difference in treatment to which the complainant objects (see Judgments 1934, under 7, and 1980, under 7). She therefore has no valid grounds for relying on a breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1934, 1980, 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 3868
124th Session, 2017
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to shortlist him for a position for which he had applied.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The following statement in Judgment 2313, under 5, provides context for discrimination or unequal treatment:
“The principle of equality requires that persons in like situations be treated alike and that persons in relevantly different situations be treated differently. In most cases involving allegations of unequal treatment, the critical question is whether there is a relevant difference warranting the different treatment involved. Even where there is a relevant difference, different treatment may breach the principle of equality if the different treatment is not appropriate and adapted to that difference.”
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 3787
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the step in grade assigned to him on his appointment as a member of a board of appeal.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194 under 6(a), 2313, under 5, or 3029, under 14). The Tribunal notes, as did the Internal Appeals Committee, that while it is true that the duties of all the members of boards of appeal are identical, their legal and administrative status is different depending on whether they are recruited externally or appointed internally.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029
Keywords:
equal treatment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
