ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By session > 128th Session

Judgment No. 4188


The complaint is dismissed.


The complainant challenges the rejection of her application for payment of an expatriation allowance.

Judgment keywords


allowance; expatriation allowance; complaint dismissed

Consideration 1


The complainant requests an oral hearing under Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal however notes that the parties have presented ample submissions and documents to permit the Tribunal to reach an informed decision on the case. The request for an oral hearing is therefore refused.


ILOAT reference: Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Rules


oral proceedings

Consideration 6


The issue is whether, if in [the] three-year period there is service which is not to be counted, the consequence is that the expatriation allowance is payable, or whether that service is ignored when identifying, looking backwards, the end point of the three-year period. The answer does not clearly emerge from the text, but does from a consideration of the purpose of the provision and the rationale for the benefit. The provision is intended to compensate employees who have left their permanent home in one country to take up employment in another (see Judgment 2925, under 3). That purpose is best served by the latter approach to the meaning of the provision, rather than by the former approach, which would reward a person who has mainly resided in the duty country, even for decades, but had for a period within the three years, perhaps extremely briefly, been, for example, employed by an international organisation.


ILOAT Judgment(s): 2925


interpretation; expatriation allowance

Last updated: 20.05.2020 ^ top