Amendment to the rules (233,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Amendment to the rules
Total judgments found: 214
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 2682
104th Session, 2008
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[A]ccording to the case law as established in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, an acquired right is breached only when [...] an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering 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 to determine whether there has been a breach of acquired rights, it is therefore necessary to ascertain whether the altered terms of employment are fundamental and essential within the meaning of Judgment 832."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; breach; condition; contract; law of contract; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2637
103rd Session, 2007
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant requests that the effective date of the administration's decision to grant her international status be changed to December 1991 instead of August 2005. "[I]t may be noted that, exceptionally, retroactive effect may be granted to a decision where the effect is favourable to a staff member (see Judgment 1130). In the present case, however, a grant of retroactivity would confer no benefit on the complainant either in relation to home leave or education grant. In the circumstances, the rule against retroactivity should be applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1130
Keywords:
allowance; amendment to the rules; claim; date; decision; education expenses; effect; enforcement; exception; general principle; home leave; non-local status; non-retroactivity; official; staff member's interest; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 2633
103rd Session, 2007
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Where a decision to introduce a new pension scheme is taken on grounds of financial necessity, such as the need to address the rising cost of pensions, the Tribunal cannot consider it to be invalid merely because it leads to a situation that is less favourable to employees."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; budgetary reasons; decision; decision quashed; grounds; increase; injury; judicial review; official; organisation's interest; pension; pension adjustment system;
Judgment 2632
103rd Session, 2007
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]he complainants assert that their acquired rights were breached because the Agency abandoned a practice, applied to them from 1 January to 30 June 2005, involving the application to pensions of the same weightings as were applied to the remuneration of serving officials. But a practice of salary and pension adjustment, even where repeated, does not bind the Organisation that adopted it, which is at liberty to abandon it provided that it does so lawfully (see in this connection Judgment 2089). As for acquired rights, they could not be held to have been breached unless the contested reform impaired a fundamental and essential term of the complainants' conditions of appointment, which include the right to a pension (see aforementioned Judgment 2089 and the case law cited therein). This is clearly not the case here."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2089
Keywords:
acquired right; adjustment; amendment to the rules; breach; condition; cost-of-living weighting; discretion; enforcement; formal requirements; injury; organisation's duties; pension; pension adjustment system; pension entitlements; practice; salary; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2626
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(a)
Extract:
"A decision to refuse to publish in an international organisation's in-house magazine the corrigendum of an article which, in the opinion of the staff member concerned, injures his personal interests may constitute a breach of that staff member's personal rights and an infringement of his freedom of expression. Insofar as such a decision in itself produces legal effects and infringes the rights of the staff member concerned, it constitutes an administrative act causing injury."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; cause of action; effect; freedom of speech; individual decision; injury; moral injury; organisation; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2562
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The Tribunal's case law has determined that the head of an international organisation has the 'executive authority to assign staff to different posts' (Judgment 534), and 'is empowered to change the duties assigned to his subordinates' (Judgment 265)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 265, 534
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; assignment; case law; discretion; executive head; iloat; official; organisation; post; supervisor;
Judgment 2527
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"Article 12(1) of the Pension Regulations allowed the transfer of pension rights acquired by employees under a pension scheme prior to joining the Office only 'provided that that scheme allow[ed] such transfers to be made'. In the present case, it appears from the submissions that the INPS has not yet accepted the transfer to the EPO of pension rights acquired by employees who, like the complainant, were affiliated to the Italian state pension scheme. However regrettable it may be that employees of the Office in the position of the complainant are left at a disadvantage, the Office cannot be blamed for not amending the provisions of Article 12 at the risk of having to bear the costs of the transfer: the consent of the Italian authorities is clearly necessary before any such transfer can take place.
Nevertheless, the Organisation must not have shown negligence or ill will in submitting the problem raised by the complainant to the Italian authorities. It emerges from the submissions, however, that the Italian authorities were approached unsuccessfully in 1992 and 1998 and [again in] 2004 [...]. The Organisation cannot therefore be accused of having 'blocked' the situation and the complainant is not justified in deeming its conduct to be unlawful."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 12(1) of the Pension Regulations
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; equal treatment; member state; negligence; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff regulations and rules; transfer of pension rights;
Judgment 2389
98th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he purpose of home leave is to enable staff members who, owing to their work, spend a number of years away from the country with which they have the closest personal or material ties to return there in order to maintain those connections. Regulation 5.3, which denies home leave to staff members whose home country is the country of their official duty station or who continue to reside in their home country, is therefore self-explanatory. Regulation 4.5, paragraph 2, reflects the same reasoning, insofar as it provides that a staff member may lose entitlement to home leave if, following a change in his residential status, he is, in the opinion of the Director General, deemed to be a permanent resident of any country other than that of his nationality, provided that the Director General considers that the continuation of such entitlement would be contrary to the purposes for which the benefit was created."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU Staff Regulations 4.5, paragraph 2, and 5.3
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; condition; consequence; difference; duty station; executive head; family relationship; home leave; nationality; official; period; place of origin; purpose; refusal; residence; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2362
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"By virtue of successive short-term contracts and extensions thereof, [the complainant's] service lasted for four years. The series of extensions and the grant of pension coverage and other benefits did not signify a change in her original status. Staff Rule 3.5(a) [...] cannot be invoked by her as proof that her appointment had been converted to fixed-term. While this provision ostensibly bestows on her 'the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment', it would be stretching the intent and signification of the provision to make the complainant a fixed-term official (see Judgment 1666). Had that been the purpose of the Rule, it would have explicitly so provided instead of stating that 'the terms and conditions of a fixed-term appointment [...] shall apply to [the official concerned]'. The complainant was recruited as a short-term official and remained one at all times."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 3.5(a) of the Rules Governing Conditions of Service of Short-Term Officials
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1666
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; commutation; contract; evidence; extension of contract; fixed-term; fringe benefits; fund membership; interpretation; official; period; provision; purpose; short-term; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; successive contracts; terms of appointment; unjspf;
Judgment 2350
97th Session, 2004
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant seeks the revision of certain rules and policies. EFTA submits that such a claim is irreceivable. "In this it is clearly correct. Relevantly, the Tribunal is competent only to hear complaints with respect to the non-observance of the terms of appointment or the provisions of EFTA's Staff Regulations and Rules."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; iloat statute; provision; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; vested competence;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. "A change in the nature of the discretion to be exercised in determining whether to grant future rights by the extension or renewal of a contract cannot be said to effect a change in an existing legal interest, much less in an existing legal right or existing legal status. Accordingly, the seven year policy embodied in [the] directive [...] is not retroactive even if the seven year period is computed from a time prior to the proclamation of that policy."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; career; consequence; contract; date; decision; discretion; exception; extension of contract; general principle; limits; non-local status; official; organisation; period; professional category; publication; reckoning; right; staff member's interest; status of complainant; terms of appointment; written rule;
Considerations 22-23
Extract:
"There are two aspects to the rule against retroactivity. The first is a rule of interpretation which requires that a provision not be construed as having retroactive effect unless that is clearly intended. The second is a substantive rule of international civil service law which, as explained in Judgment 1589, prevents a retroactive change in the legal status of staff save in limited circumstances [...]. However, to state the rule in this way is not to expose what is meant by 'retroactive'. In general terms, a provision is retroactive if it effects some change in existing legal status, rights, liabilities or interests from a date prior to its proclamation, but not if it merely affects the procedures to be observed in the future with respect to such status, rights, liabilities or interests."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1589
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; case law; collective rights; condition; consequence; date; definition; effect; exception; general principle; international civil service principles; interpretation; non-retroactivity; official; organisation's interest; procedure before the tribunal; provision; publication; purpose; right; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2244
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that the competent bodies of the Organisation may repeal or modify rules they have established, subject to compliance with the principle that similar acts require similar rules, as pointed out in Judgment 1896, but that those bodies' discretionary powers are limited by the general principles of international civil service law, including the principle of equality, whereby officials in the same circumstances should be treated in the same way."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1896
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; discretion; equal treatment; general principle; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; provision; repeal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2193
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant, who had entered into a civil solidarity contract (pacte civil de solidarité, hereinafter 'pacs') with his male partner, informed the administration that his partner was entirely dependent on him. The organisation replied that, under the rules currently applicable within the United Nations system, the pacs was not recognised as a formal marriage that could create an entitlement to any benefits or allowances for a dependent spouse. "The complainant submits that, since the Director-General is entitled to modify or create exceptions to the application of the Staff Rules, he could and ought to have made an exception in the present case or amended the disputed text in order to protect the rights of homosexuals. [...] However, irrespective of the validity of the arguments put forward in urging the Director-General to take individual choices into account in the context of a culture of tolerance compatible with changing moral beliefs, the Director-General cannot be compelled to resort to what is merely an option open to him under certain clearly defined circumstances, since exercising that option is entirely a matter of discretion."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; contract; dependant; discretion; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; marital status; same-sex marriage; sex discrimination; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2124
93rd Session, 2002
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises [...] because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested. To allow the reasons to be given only after a complaint has been brought before the Tribunal would be to encourage the bringing of complaints for which it would ultimately be shown that there was no justification. Judgment 477 turned on a specific finding that the complainant in that case had 'suffered no prejudice whatever from the absence of a statement of the reasons for the impugned decision' since he had received copies of the documents which served as the basis for the decision prior to filing his complaint. The Tribunal's more recent case law [...] makes it clear that such line of argument is to be seen as a narrow exception to the general rule."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 477
Keywords:
absence of final decision; amendment to the rules; case law; cause of action; complainant; complaint; duty to substantiate decision; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 2097
92nd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"If the contracts are valid and enforceable and not in breach of any applicable staff rule or principle of international civil service law, the Tribunal has no power to reform them or to remake the bargain which the parties themselves have chosen to make."
Keywords:
acceptance; amendment to the rules; applicable law; competence of tribunal; contract; iloat; international civil service principles; official; provision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2089
92nd Session, 2002
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
From 1986 to 2000 the organisation followed the practice followed by the coordinated organizations in adjusting both salaries and pensions in accordance with both cost-of-living and standard-of-living adjustments. In July 2000 it made a cost-of-living adjustment mandatory for pensions even if no such adjustment is made to salaries, but no provision is made for standard-of-living adjustment to pensions. "It is to no avail that the complainants criticise the effectiveness of the change or the accuracy of the calculations on which it was based, for those are not matters within the Tribunal's competence."
Keywords:
adjustment; amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; iloat; no provision; pension; pension adjustment system; period; practice; reckoning; salary;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complaint attacks a decision [...] amending Article 36 of the [organisation]'s Pension Scheme rules. While the Tribunal cannot grant the claim for quashing that amended article and the complaint is, to that extent, irreceivable, the Tribunal will treat it as a complaint against the application of the amended article in breach of the complainants' acquired rights."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 36 OF THE EMBL'S PENSION SCHEME RULES
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; competence of tribunal; general decision; impugned decision; pension; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 9
Extract:
From 1986 to 2000 the organisation followed the practice followed by the coordinated organizations in adjusting both salaries and pensions in accordance with both cost-of-living and standard-of-living adjustments. In July 2000 it made a cost-of-living adjustment mandatory for pensions even if no such adjustment is made to salaries, but no provision is made for standard-of-living adjustment to pensions. "It is simply untenable to argue that the [organisation] could, by following the practice of the coordinated organizations in previous years, bind itself to do so for all time [...] There can be no doubt that the same body that had the authority to adopt [the] decision [to follow the practice followed by the coordinated organizations] had equally the authority to decide to withdraw it."
Keywords:
adjustment; amendment to the rules; competence; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; decision quashed; executive body; no provision; organisation's duties; pension; pension adjustment system; period; practice; salary;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The true thrust of the complainants' case, and the only aspect which requires serious consideration, is that the amendment breaches certain of their acquired rights. The complainants lay particular emphasis on Judgment 61 in which the Tribunal stated the following:
"12. The terms of appointment of international civil servants and, in particular, those of the officials of the [Organisation], derive both from the stipulations of a strictly individual character in their contract of appointment and from Staff Regulations and Rules, which the contract of employment by reference incorporates. Owing, inter alia, to their increasing complexity, the conditions of service mainly appear not amongst the stipulations specifically set out in the contract of appointment but in the provisions of the above-mentioned Staff Regulations and Rules. The Staff Regulations and Rules contain in effect two types of provisions, the nature of which differs according to the objects to which they are directed. It is necessary to distinguish, on the one hand provisions which appertain to the structure and functioning of the international civil service and the benefits of an impersonal nature and subject to variation, and, on the other hand, provisions which appertain to the individual terms and conditions of an official, in consideration of which he accepted appointment. Provisions of the first type are statutory in character and may be modified at any time in the interest of the service, subject, nevertheless, to the principle of non-retroactivity and to such limitations as the competent authority itself may place upon its powers to modify them. Conversely, provisions of the second type should to a large extent be assimilated to contractual stipulations. Hence, if the efficient functioning of the organisation in the general interest of the international community requires that the latter type of provisions should not be frozen at the date of appointment and continue so for its entire duration, such provisions may be modified in respect of a serving official and without his consent but only in so far as modification does not adversely affect the balance of contractual obligations or infringe the essential terms in
consideration of which the official accepted appointment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2081
92nd Session, 2002
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The issue to be resolved [...] is whether the complainants are barred from objecting to the [organisation]'s failure to take into account the corrected level of salaries for 1995 in determining the salaries for 1996 and 1997, because they did not first challenge their salaries for 1996 and 1997 [... ] when they were originally fixed. But in view of the circumstances, to make such a demand on them would be pedantic and wanting in good faith. As the parties were aware at the time, the salary levels for 1995 were under challenge [...] Moreover, any change in salary levels will ordinarily affect pay in subsequent years. The staff therefore had good reason to believe that a change in pay for 1995 would have a "knock on" effect on the level of salaries used as a basis for calculating pay in the future. Moreover, the [organisation] could be in no doubt that this was what staff would expect. In these circumstances, and having given them no indication to the contrary, the [organisation] could not require staff to challenge each new determination of their salaries on the conditional and hypothetical basis that any successful challenge to the remuneration for a previous year (in this case 1995) should automatically be carried through to the salary levels taken into account in subsequent years."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; consequence; formal requirements; general principle; good faith; legitimate expectation; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; time bar;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Consistent precedent has it that an organisation is ordinarily free to determine the pay of its staff, provided that it respects certain requirements arising from general principles of international civil service law [...] Furthermore, if the organisation has a rule granting certain rights to staff members in relation to their level of salary, it may not depart from that rule in individual decisions without amending it in accordance with the prescribed procedure."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; case law; condition; discretion; formal requirements; general principle; individual decision; international civil service principles; official; organisation; organisation's duties; provision; right; salary; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2080
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
"The Director-General, in exercise of his discretionary authority and taking into account the overall interests of the organisation, decided that the [complainant's] post [...] should be redefined and that [his] contract should not be renewed. The Tribunal accepts that the organisation was entitled to adapt to changes and to modify the job description for the given post in view of the organisation's future needs."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; contract; decision; discretion; executive head; non-renewal of contract; organisation; organisation's interest; post description; post held by the complainant; reorganisation; right;
Judgment 2066
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"There is breach of equal treatment only where staff members in an identical or comparable position in fact and in law receive different treatment from the organisation. Consequently, the right to equal treatment does not preclude amendment of a rule or the way in which it is applied. A new rule could be less favourable than the old one, and hence be subject to challenge, without necessarily impairing the right to equal treatment."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; definition; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; general principle; right; written rule;
Judgment 2054
91st Session, 2001
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal is unable to agree with the complainant that as a disabled former staff member he is entitled to a right to reassignment. There is no basis in the Staff Regulations for conferring on him a preferential status. As with any job applicant, he has to follow the procedures and apply for any desired vacant post. To rule otherwise would, in effect, introduce an amendment to the applicable rules to unduly favour disabled former staff members. As the Tribunal has held in Judgment 637 [...] the staff (much less former employees) 'may not demand amendment of the rules governing their employment'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 637
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; candidate; competition; handicapped person; priority; reassignment; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; vacancy;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
