|
|
 |
|
|
ICSC Statute (222,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: ICSC Statute
Total judgments found: 7
Judgment 4138
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 41
Extract:
The scheme of the ICSC’s Statute is relatively clear. On some matters the ICSC is authorised to make a decision. On some matters it is authorised to make a recommendation to the General Assembly. In the latter situation, the reservation of the power to decide to the General Assembly is intended to ensure that the actual decision is made at the highest level. The role of the General Assembly is not intended to be nominal or symbolic. Otherwise there would be no purpose served by conferring on it the power to decide rather than on the ICSC. The General Assembly, obviously aided by the recommendations of the ICSC and the reasons for those recommendations, must give genuine and realistic consideration to the matter on which a decision must be made. If there is information known to the General Assembly that, in a material way, bears upon whether it should accept and act on the recommendation of the ICSC or reject the recommendation, then it must have regard to the information or material.
Keywords:
icsc statute;
Considerations 35-36
Extract:
In ascertaining the ICSC’s powers, the text of the Statute construed purposively is of paramount importance. The text of Articles 10 and 11 is comparatively clear, particularly having regard to the immediate context. The two articles are clearly intended to demark different functions or powers. If the power to determine post adjustments in a quantitative sense is conferred by Article 10(b), then the power is not conferred by Article 11 and, specifically, by the expression “[establishing] the classification of duty stations for the purpose of applying post adjustments”. Each provision is mutually exclusive of the other in the sense that the power to decide in relation to specified matters is conferred by one Article and the power to recommend only in relation to other specified matters is created by the other Article. It is inconceivable that each provision confers a power to address or deal with the same subject matter.
Even if the words “[t]he scales” are intended to qualify not only “salaries” but also “post adjustments”, there is little room to doubt that Article 10(b) is concerned with the quantification of salaries and post adjustments that would be the subject of recommendation. Indeed, Article 12(2) creates an exception to the limitation that the ICSC is only to recommend salary scales. That paragraph confers power to determine salary scales at a particular duty station rather than make a recommendation if requested by the executive head after consultation with staff representatives. The existence of this exception in relation to salary scales and its absence in relation to post adjustments, reinforces the construction of the Statute that the ICSC’s power in relation to the quantification of post adjustments is limited to making recommendations. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard only to the text of the Statute, that Article 11(c) is not a source of power to make a decision quantifying post adjustments.
Keywords:
icsc statute; interpretation;
Consideration 39
Extract:
[W]hatever may have emerged systemically by actions of the General Assembly cannot, in the absence of an amendment to the Statute, found an interpretation of the Statute, adopted almost one and a half decades earlier, which is at odds with its terms. Article 30 of the Statute provides that amendments to it are to be made by the General Assembly and are subject to the same acceptance procedure “as the present statute”. Article 1 provides that acceptance involves notification thereof in writing by the executive head of the organization.
Keywords:
icsc statute; interpretation;
Consideration 40
Extract:
The ICSC did not have power to decide, itself, the amounts of post adjustments with the ultimate consequence that the salaries of Geneva-based Professional category and above be reduced. The ICSC could only make recommendations and not decide on amounts. That was the preserve of the General Assembly.
Keywords:
general assembly resolution; icsc decision; icsc statute; practice;
Judgment 4137
128th Session, 2019
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 33
Extract:
The scheme of the ICSC’s Statute is relatively clear. On some matters the ICSC is authorised to make a decision. On some matters it is authorised to make a recommendation to the General Assembly. In the latter situation, the reservation of the power to decide to the General Assembly is intended to ensure that the actual decision is made at the highest level. The role of the General Assembly is not intended to be nominal or symbolic. Otherwise there would be no purpose served by conferring on it the power to decide rather than on the ICSC. The General Assembly, obviously aided by the recommendations of the ICSC and the reasons for those recommendations, must give genuine and realistic consideration to the matter on which a decision must be made. If there is information known to the General Assembly that, in a material way, bears upon whether it should accept and act on the recommendation of the ICSC or reject the recommendation, then it must have regard to the information or material.
Keywords:
icsc statute;
Considerations 27-28
Extract:
In ascertaining the ICSC’s powers, the text of the Statute construed purposively is of paramount importance. The text of Articles 10 and 11 is comparatively clear, particularly having regard to the immediate context. The two articles are clearly intended to demark different functions or powers. If the power to determine post adjustments in a quantitative sense is conferred by Article 10(b), then the power is not conferred by Article 11 and, specifically, by the expression “[establishing] the classification of duty stations for the purpose of applying post adjustments”. Each provision is mutually exclusive of the other in the sense that the power to decide in relation to specified matters is conferred by one Article and the power to recommend only in relation to other specified matters is created by the other Article. It is inconceivable that each provision confers a power to address or deal with the same subject matter.
Even if the words “[t]he scales” are intended to qualify not only “salaries” but also “post adjustments”, there is little room to doubt that Article 10(b) is concerned with the quantification of salaries and post adjustments that would be the subject of recommendation. Indeed, Article 12(2) creates an exception to the limitation that the ICSC is only to recommend salary scales. That paragraph confers power to determine salary scales at a particular duty station rather than make a recommendation if requested by the executive head after consultation with staff representatives. The existence of this exception in relation to salary scales and its absence in relation to post adjustments, reinforces the construction of the Statute that the ICSC’s power in relation to the quantification of post adjustments is limited to making recommendations. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard only to the text of the Statute, that Article 11(c) is not a source of power to make a decision quantifying post adjustments.
Keywords:
icsc statute; interpretation;
Consideration 31
Extract:
[W]hatever may have emerged systemically by actions of the General Assembly cannot, in the absence of an amendment to the Statute, found an interpretation of the Statute, adopted almost one and a half decades earlier, which is at odds with its terms. Article 30 of the Statute provides that amendments to it are to be made by the General Assembly and are subject to the same acceptance procedure “as the present statute”. Article 1 provides that acceptance involves notification thereof in writing by the executive head of the organization.
Keywords:
icsc statute; interpretation;
Judgment 4136
128th Session, 2019
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Considerations 27-28
Extract:
In ascertaining the ICSC’s powers, the text of the Statute construed purposively is of paramount importance. The text of Articles 10 and 11 is comparatively clear, particularly having regard to the immediate context. The two articles are clearly intended to demark different functions or powers. If the power to determine post adjustments in a quantitative sense is conferred by Article 10(b), then the power is not conferred by Article 11 and, specifically, by the expression “[establishing] the classification of duty stations for the purpose of applying post adjustments”. Each provision is mutually exclusive of the other in the sense that the power to decide in relation to specified matters is conferred by one Article and the power to recommend only in relation to other specified matters is created by the other Article. It is inconceivable that each provision confers a power to address or deal with the same subject matter.
Even if the words “[t]he scales” are intended to qualify not only “salaries” but also “post adjustments”, there is little room to doubt that Article 10(b) is concerned with the quantification of salaries and post adjustments that would be the subject of recommendation. Indeed, Article 12(2) creates an exception to the limitation that the ICSC is only to recommend salary scales. That paragraph confers power to determine salary scales at a particular duty station rather than make a recommendation if requested by the executive head after consultation with staff representatives. The existence of this exception in relation to salary scales and its absence in relation to post adjustments, reinforces the construction of the Statute that the ICSC’s power in relation to the quantification of post adjustments is limited to making recommendations. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard only to the text of the Statute, that Article 11(c) is not a source of power to make a decision quantifying post adjustments.
Keywords:
icsc statute; interpretation;
Consideration 31
Extract:
[W]hatever may have emerged systemically by actions of the General Assembly cannot, in the absence of an amendment to the Statute, found an interpretation of the Statute, adopted almost one and a half decades earlier, which is at odds with its terms. Article 30 of the Statute provides that amendments to it are to be made by the General Assembly and are subject to the same acceptance procedure “as the present statute”. Article 1 provides that acceptance involves notification thereof in writing by the executive head of the organization.
Keywords:
icsc statute; interpretation;
Consideration 33
Extract:
The scheme of the ICSC’s Statute is relatively clear. On some matters the ICSC is authorised to make a decision. On some matters it is authorised to make a recommendation to the General Assembly. In the latter situation, the reservation of the power to decide to the General Assembly is intended to ensure that the actual decision is made at the highest level. The role of the General Assembly is not intended to be nominal or symbolic. Otherwise there would be no purpose served by conferring on it the power to decide rather than on the ICSC. The General Assembly, obviously aided by the recommendations of the ICSC and the reasons for those recommendations, must give genuine and realistic consideration to the matter on which a decision must be made. If there is information known to the General Assembly that, in a material way, bears upon whether it should accept and act on the recommendation of the ICSC or reject the recommendation, then it must have regard to the information or material.
Keywords:
icsc statute;
Judgment 4135
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Considerations 34-35
Extract:
In ascertaining the ICSC’s powers, the text of the Statute construed purposively is of paramount importance. The text of Articles 10 and 11 is comparatively clear, particularly having regard to the immediate context. The two articles are clearly intended to demark different functions or powers. If the power to determine post adjustments in a quantitative sense is conferred by Article 10(b), then the power is not conferred by Article 11 and, specifically, by the expression “[establishing] the classification of duty stations for the purpose of applying post adjustments”. Each provision is mutually exclusive of the other in the sense that the power to decide in relation to specified matters is conferred by one Article and the power to recommend only in relation to other specified matters is created by the other Article. It is inconceivable that each provision confers a power to address or deal with the same subject matter.
Even if the words “[t]he scales” are intended to qualify not only “salaries” but also “post adjustments”, there is little room to doubt that Article 10(b) is concerned with the quantification of salaries and post adjustments that would be the subject of recommendation. Indeed, Article 12(2) creates an exception to the limitation that the ICSC is only to recommend salary scales. That paragraph confers power to determine salary scales at a particular duty station rather than make a recommendation if requested by the executive head after consultation with staff representatives. The existence of this exception in relation to salary scales and its absence in relation to post adjustments, reinforces the construction of the Statute that the ICSC’s power in relation to the quantification of post adjustments is limited to making recommendations. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard only to the text of the Statute, that Article 11(c) is not a source of power to make a decision quantifying post adjustments.
Keywords:
icsc statute; interpretation;
Consideration 38
Extract:
[W]hatever may have emerged systemically by actions of the General Assembly cannot, in the absence of an amendment to the Statute, found an interpretation of the Statute, adopted almost one and a half decades earlier, which is at odds with its terms. Article 30 of the Statute provides that amendments to it are to be made by the General Assembly and are subject to the same acceptance procedure “as the present statute”. Article 1 provides that acceptance involves notification thereof in writing by the executive head of the organization.
Keywords:
icsc statute; interpretation;
Consideration 40
Extract:
The scheme of the ICSC’s Statute is relatively clear. On some matters the ICSC is authorised to make a decision. On some matters it is authorised to make a recommendation to the General Assembly. In the latter situation, the reservation of the power to decide to the General Assembly is intended to ensure that the actual decision is made at the highest level. The role of the General Assembly is not intended to be nominal or symbolic. Otherwise there would be no purpose served by conferring on it the power to decide rather than on the ICSC. The General Assembly, obviously aided by the recommendations of the ICSC and the reasons for those recommendations, must give genuine and realistic consideration to the matter on which a decision must be made. If there is information known to the General Assembly that, in a material way, bears upon whether it should accept and act on the recommendation of the ICSC or reject the recommendation, then it must have regard to the information or material.
Keywords:
icsc statute;
Judgment 4134
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Considerations 33-34
Extract:
In ascertaining the ICSC’s powers, the text of the Statute construed purposively is of paramount importance. The text of Articles 10 and 11 is comparatively clear, particularly having regard to the immediate context. The two Articles are clearly intended to demark different functions or powers. If the power to determine post adjustments in a quantitative sense is conferred by Article 10(b), then the power is not conferred by Article 11 and, specifically, by the expression “[establishing] the classification of duty stations for the purpose of applying post adjustments”. Each provision is mutually exclusive of the other in the sense that the power to decide in relation to specified matters is conferred by one Article and the power to recommend only in relation to other specified matters is created by the other Article. It is inconceivable that each provision confers a power to address or deal with the same subject matter.
Even if the words “[t]he scales” are intended to qualify not only “salaries” but also “post adjustments”, there is little room to doubt that Article 10(b) is concerned with the quantification of salaries and post adjustments that would be the subject of recommendation. Indeed, Article 12(2) creates an exception to the limitation that the ICSC is only to recommend salary scales. That paragraph confers power to determine salary scales at a particular duty station rather than make a recommendation if requested by the executive head after consultation with staff representatives. The existence of this exception in relation to salary scales and its absence in relation to post adjustments, reinforces the construction of the Statute that the ICSC’s power in relation to the quantification of post adjustments is limited to making recommendations. The Tribunal is satisfied, having regard only to the text of the Statute, that Article 11(c) is not a source of power to make a decision quantifying post adjustments.
Keywords:
icsc statute; interpretation;
Consideration 37
Extract:
[W]hatever may have emerged systemically by actions of the General Assembly cannot, in the absence of an amendment to the Statute, found an interpretation of the Statute, adopted almost one and a half decades earlier, which is at odds with its terms. Article 30 of the Statute provides that amendments to it are to be made by the General Assembly and are subject to the same acceptance procedure “as the present statute”. Article 1 provides that acceptance involves notification thereof in writing by the executive head of the organization.
Keywords:
icsc statute; interpretation;
Consideration 38
Extract:
The ILO contends that there is an established practice accepted by the General Assembly involving the ICSC determining, by decision, PAMs and thus their effect on salaries. It contends that practice impacts, as a matter of law, on the scope of the powers of the ICSC. It refers to instances where practice is, so it contends, as a matter of international law, accepted and recognised. However, even if this were so, it would be a large step for this Tribunal to conclude that the Statute of a body such as the ICSC did not define and delimit its powers. The ILO has accepted the authority of the ICSC but necessarily on the basis of its role, as established by its Statute. The Statute recognises, in Article 1, an organization’s participation in the United Nations common system is based on its acceptance of the Statute in the manner referred to earlier. The contention of the ILO would involve the adoption of a principle by this Tribunal that the conduct of the ICSC together with its acceptance by the General Assembly, even if agreed to or accepted without objection by some or all organizations participating in the United Nations common system, could or even would result in an alteration of the powers of the ICSC irrespective of how they might be defined or constrained by its Statute.
Keywords:
general assembly resolution; icsc statute; practice;
Consideration 41
Extract:
The scheme of the ICSC’s Statute is relatively clear. On some matters the ICSC is authorised to make a decision. On some matters it is authorised to make a recommendation to the General Assembly. In the latter situation, the reservation of the power to decide to the General Assembly is intended to ensure that the actual decision is made at the highest level. The role of the General Assembly is not intended to be nominal or symbolic. Otherwise there would be no purpose served by conferring on it the power to decide rather than on the ICSC. The General Assembly, obviously aided by the recommendations of the ICSC and the reasons for those recommendations, must give genuine and realistic consideration to the matter on which a decision must be made. If there is information known to the General Assembly that, in a material way, bears upon whether it should accept and act on the recommendation of the ICSC or reject the recommendation, then it must have regard to the information or material.
Keywords:
icsc statute;
Judgment 1417
78th Session, 1995
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
In accordance with Article 11(1) of its Rules the Tribunal invites the International Civil Service Commission "by the present order to make any further submissions in answer to the complainants' claims [...] that it considers necessary. It will allow the Commission thirty days in which to do so."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11(1) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
additional written submissions; icsc statute; iloat statute; interlocutory order; time limit;
Judgment 1356
77th Session, 1994
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"In refusing the complainant's claims the Union has acted in accordance with its own rules and with its obligations as a member of the common system and under the Statute of the International Civil Service Commission. Those claims are nothing more than an attempt to challenge the pay scales under the guise of attacking the multiplier."
Keywords:
adjustment; coordinated organisations; icsc decision; icsc statute; organisation's duties; reckoning; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules;
|
|
|
|
|
