Interpretation (237,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Interpretation
Total judgments found: 195
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 1222
74th Session, 1993
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The primary rule of interpretation is that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning".
Keywords:
interpretation; written rule;
Judgment 1213
74th Session, 1993
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant is claiming assignment to a specific post. The meaning of Article VIII of the Tribunal's Statute, "as the case law has construed it, is that the Tribunal may not order an organisation to put a staff member on any particular post. All it may do is set aside an unlawful decision putting someone on a post or refusing to do so or order specific performance where the organisation has failed to discharge an obligation. In this case [...] the complainant's claim [...] fails because it is irreceivable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
assignment; case law; claim; competence of tribunal; iloat statute; interpretation; organisation's duties; post; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1163
72nd Session, 1992
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 9
Extract:
FAO Manual paragraph 308.411 provides for the award of a within-grade salary increment to officials whose service, during a "qualifying period", is satisfactory. The complainant had her annual increment withheld. "Although difficulties were found in the complainant's attitude towards other staff, [her performance reports] do not show such a pattern of conduct as to impair the quality of her work on the assignments she was given. [...] The conclusion is that the conditions in the case law for withholding an increment were not met and that the organization committed a mistake of law in construing and applying 308.411."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: FAO MANUAL PARAGRAPH 308.411
ILOAT Judgment(s): 247
Keywords:
accumulation; case law; condition; conduct; enforcement; grounds; increment; increment withheld; interpretation; satisfactory service; staff regulations and rules; step; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
Judgment 1162
72nd Session, 1992
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The complainant objects to two written warnings she got. The wording of Manual paragraph 314.221 is imprecise about what sort of conduct will warrant a warning: "it speaks of 'failure to perform prescribed duties in a satisfactory manner'. To explain how the paragraph is to be applied in practice, however, the paragraph gives in brackets some illustrations of cases of such failure [...] The draughtsman gives in brackets what are no more than examples intended to help in construing the text: they are not cumulative conditions for applying it."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: FAO MANUAL PARAGRAPH 314.221
Keywords:
accumulation; condition; conduct; grounds; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; warning;
Considerations 3-5
Extract:
The complainant objects to two written warnings she got. The reason the FAO gives for them was her failure to maintain "harmonious working relationships", which is one of the cases mentioned in Manual paragraph 314.221. "Such a reason affords a sound basis in law for the warnings and is in itself sufficient provided that it rests on true allegations of fact. The complainant is therefore mistaken in her view that there must also have been [others] since the only grounds given for the warnings are factually correct and warrant the impugned decisions, the complainant's objections must fail."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: FAO MANUAL PARAGRAPH 314.221
Keywords:
accumulation; condition; conduct; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; interpretation; staff regulations and rules; warning;
Judgment 1125
71st Session, 1991
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"A construction which an international organisation wilfully and consistently puts on a rule for years may become a binding element of personnel policy to be applied to everyone who is in the same position in law and in fact. That flows from the general principles that an organisation must show good faith and frame personnel policy in objective terms. Yet it may alter a construction it was not required to follow provided that it does not thereby offend against any of its written rules."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; binding character; general principle; good faith; interpretation; practice; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1110
71st Session, 1991
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
In Judgment 996 the Tribunal set aside the decision to dismiss the complainant and ordered his reinstatement "with full arrears of salary and allowances". In execution of that judgment the ESO reinstated him as a member of its health insurance scheme as from the date of dismissal and deducted the corresponding premiums from his pay. The complainant's objections to the deductions are mistaken. The intention of Judgment 996 was, as far as possible, to put the complainant in the same position as if he had not been dismissed. The Tribunal is satisfied that in respect of health insurance the organisation has complied with the letter and the spirit of the judgment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 996
Keywords:
application for interpretation; consequence; contributions; deduction; health insurance; insurance; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; medical expenses; payment; reinstatement; salary;
Judgment 1099
71st Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant claims the expatriation allowance provided under Article 72 of the EPO Service Regulations for officials who, at the time of their appointment, have not been continuously resident in their duty station for the preceding three years. As he does not meet that requirement, he wants the time he spent in the Federal Republic of Germany to be discounted and he relies on the German wording of the provision, which refers to the official's being "permanently established" rather than "resident" at the duty station as in the English and French versions. The English and French versions being quite explicit, the German version must be interpreted in a way that reconciles all three. (Vide Judgment 926.)
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 72 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
ILOAT Judgment(s): 926
Keywords:
condition; criteria; interpretation; language of rule; nationality; non-resident allowance; residence; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1064
70th Session, 1991
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
[A]n application for interpretation is receivable only if the operative part of the judgment is ambiguous or otherwise unclear. The present application is about the meaning of the term "rates" and therefore qualifies under the rule as stated in that judgment. [...]
The only meaning the term "rates" in point 2 can bear is "rate of salary" and "rate of allowances". Nowhere in the judgment is there any allusion to a "rate of exchange", and the clear intent is that the complainant should receive by way of damages for material injury a lump sum to be calculated by reference to the salary and allowances he was entitled to at the date of separation.
Keywords:
allowance; application for interpretation; interpretation; rate; salary;
Judgment 1053
69th Session, 1990
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
In respect of tax reimbursement the IAEA took the reference in Provisional Staff Regulation 5.02(a) to "salaries or allowances paid by the Agency" to cover lump-sum payments from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund between 1980 and 1989. The Tribunal holds that, "having been followed over several years,the interpretation became part of the Agency's personnel policy and had to be applied to all departing staff members who found themselves in similar circumstances. If the Agency chose to take a different view of the interpretation at a later stage, it could not in doing so break with the general principle of good faith which it is required to observe in dealings with its staff members."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IAEA PROVISIONAL STAFF REGULATION 5.02(A)
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; good faith; interpretation; lump-sum; pension; practice; refund; staff regulations and rules; tax;
Judgment 1032
69th Session, 1990
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant points out inconsistencies between the English, French and German texts of [Article 12(1) of the EPO Pension Scheme Regulations and Rule 12.1/1(i)(b) of the Implementing Rules]. The three language versions, being equally authentic, shall be deemed to bear the same meaning. Where there are inconsistencies the Tribunal will apply the construction which, having regard to the purpose of the provisions, best reconciles the various versions."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 12(1) OF THE EPO PENSION SCHEME REGULATIONS; RULE 12.1/1(I)(B) OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES
Keywords:
authentic version; criteria; difference; interpretation; language of rule; purpose; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 980
66th Session, 1989
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant is in fact asking the Tribunal to change its mind about its interpretation of the rules. The reasons he puts forward are essentially that its judgment showed misappraisal of the facts and a mistake in law in interpreting the rules and failed to endorse his own interpretation. Those are not admissible grounds for review."
Keywords:
application for review; appraisal of facts; inadmissible grounds for review; interpretation; misinterpretation of the facts; mistake of law;
Judgment 979
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant's application "merely alleges misinterpretation of the EPO's Service Regulations and guidelines. That is an assertion of error of law which, according to the long-established case-law, does not constitute valid grounds for review".
Keywords:
application for review; interpretation; mistake of law;
Judgment 975
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is a principle of interpretation - expressio unius exclusio alterius - that express mention in a text of one or more things belonging to a category excludes by implication all other things in the category."
Keywords:
criteria; interpretation; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The fact that [the complainant] formerly benefited from misinterpretation of the rules does not entitle her to have the rules wrongly applied a second time."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; interpretation;
Judgment 945
65th Session, 1988
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Article R II 4.35 of the ESO Staff Regulations, which provides that "the first period of home leave shall be granted during the second year of service and the subsequent periods every alternate year thereafter", is deemed by the Tribunal to mean that "the right to home leave is confined in every case to a single year, i.e. the second, fourth and each succeeding even-numbered year of service."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 4.35 OF THE ESO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
home leave; interpretation; period; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 939
65th Session, 1988
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
The complainant, who has not held a headquarters post for the past thirteen years, alleges breach of Circular 180. The Tribunal holds that "the Circular does not [...] make an unqualified promise to bring back to Headquarters an official who has spent a substantial period in the field: all it promises is intensive effort to do so".
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CIRCULAR 180 (SERIES 6) OF 22 MAY 1980
Keywords:
administrative instruction; assignment; field; headquarters; interpretation; request for transfer; right; transfer;
Judgment 936
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Article 64(6) of the Service Regulations reads: 'The remuneration of the permanent employees shall be subject to periodic review and shall be adjusted by the Administrative Council taking account of the recommendations of the Co-ordinating Committee of government budget experts of the co-ordinated organisations'. Though the definition puts the EPO under no specific obligation it does reflect an intention of not letting EPO pay get out of line with the broad trend in national civil services, and that is the rule of thumb followed by the Co-ordinating Committee."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 64(6) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
adjustment; coordinated organisations; interpretation; provision; salary; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 927
65th Session, 1988
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Before the complainant's divorce during a period of trial separation, the organization discontinued payment of her family allowance and lowered the rate of her non-resident allowance. The Tribunal holds that "the temporary separation of the spouses prior to the decree of divorce, though authorised by a court order, was neither a 'legal' separation nor a 'similar legal situation' within the meaning of R IV 1.13 [of the Staff Rules and Regulations]. The trial separation is a preliminary to divorce required by law. It is limited in time and revocable. It has no effect on the marital status of the spouses, who may use it as they will. It is not in the same category as legal separation, which is a permanent solution." Since the organization made a mistake of law, the Director-General's decision must be set aside.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R IV 1.13 OF CERN STAFF RULES
Keywords:
allowance; consequence; domestic law; family allowance; flaw; interpretation; marital status; non-resident allowance;
Judgment 926
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is plain from the text [of Article 72 of the Service Regulations] that the allowance is to be refused to an employee who is a citizen of the country where he is stationed unless at the time of appointment he has been continuously resident in another country for at least ten years. That is indeed the purport of the English and French texts, which are clear: the terms 'résident' and 'résidaient' do not necessarily connote permanent or established residence. The English and French versions being explicit, the German is to be interpreted in a way that reconciles all three; and in its English and French versions 72[3] requires that a citizen of the Federal Republic serving at Munich shall be paid the allowance only if at the time of appointment he has been 'continuously resident for at least 10 years' outside the Federal Republic."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 72 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
difference; duty station; interpretation; language of rule; nationality; non-resident allowance; residence;
Judgment 898
64th Session, 1988
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant wants the Tribunal to make recommendations on how to interpret certain provisions in the rules. "Besides stating his claims in vague and general terms the complainant is not seeking the quashing of any decision but mere recommendations in the form of advice to be commended to some unidentified person or authority. The Tribunal may neither give an advisory opinion nor rule on a dispute in which no breach of the terms of appointment or of the Staff Regulations is alleged. For that reason the claims are irreceivable."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; cause of action; competence of tribunal; complainant; interpretation; receivability of the complaint; request by a party; staff regulations and rules; tribunal; vague claim;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The claims are irreceivable because "they are a pointless attempt to get review of decisions that the Tribunal ruled on in Judgments 732 and 733. [...] [The complainant is] pleading misinterpretation of the text, and that would be a mistake of law, which is not an admissible reason for reviewing a text that carries the authority of res judicata."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 732, 733
Keywords:
application for review; interpretation; mistake of law; res judicata; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 872
63rd Session, 1987
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"A decision by a national court cannot be binding on the Tribunal, which is the body of final instance competent to interpret the Staff Rules as an issue of law."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; consequence; iloat; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; last instance; municipal court; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
