Difference (603,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Difference
Total judgments found: 116
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 2355
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Along with the obligation for an international organisation to give reasons when the executive head decides not to follow the recommendation of its internal appeal body (see Judgments 2092 and 2261), it has the duty in its pleadings before the Tribunal not to rely on new and different reasons which it failed to invoke in the impugned decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; grounds; iloat; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
Judgment 2313
96th Session, 2004
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"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:
breach; difference; equal treatment; general principle;
Judgment 2311
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complaints must [...] be dismissed. Consequently, the applications to intervene filed by interveners whose claims are the same as the complainants' must likewise be dismissed. Insofar as some of the applications to intervene include other claims, they are irreceivable, as are those submitted by unidentified claimants."
Keywords:
claim; complainant; complaint; difference; identical claims; intervention; official; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;
Judgment 2300
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant contends that the [challenged] decision is unlawful because it is based on an opinion by the Joint Appeals Committee signed by its Chairman alone, whereas it is common practice in Interpol, as in other international organisations, for this type of document to be signed by all members of the Committee. The Organization rightly points out that, in accordance with Article 152(3) of the Staff Rules, the Chairman of the relevant Joint Committee shall sign the consultative opinion. This provision cannot be challenged on the grounds that different practices prevail in other organisations."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 152(3) of Interpol's Staff Rules
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; decision; difference; flaw; formal flaw; internal appeals body; organisation; practice; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2239
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Since the complaints fail, so must the applications to intervene, it being noted that certain claims they contain which differ from those submitted in the complaints are in any case irreceivable."
Keywords:
claim; complaint; difference; intervention; new claim; receivability of the complaint; refusal; request by a party;
Judgment 2237
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The application to intervene that has been filed must be dismissed since the applicant is not in the same situation in fact and in law to that of the complainant.
Keywords:
complainant; difference; intervention; refusal; request by a party; right;
Judgment 2194
94th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6(a)
Extract:
"The right to equal treatment requires that situations which are the same or similar be governed by the same rules and that dissimilar situations be governed by rules that take account of the dissimilarity. The authority, which is required to give equal treatment to dissimilar situations, has a broad discretion in adopting rules that take into account that dissimilarity (see Judgment 1990, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990
Keywords:
definition; difference; discretion; equal treatment; right; written rule;
Judgment 2171
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is not the same thing as termination and does not give rise to any termination indemnity."
Keywords:
contract; difference; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; terminal entitlements; termination of employment;
Judgment 2168
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-2
Extract:
"Except for some minor and irrelevant matters of detail, and differences in the manner and form, but not the substance of the arguments presented, the case of the present complainants is almost identical to that which was decided by the tribunal in Judgment 2142 [...] all issues, both procedural and substantive, were definitively dealt with by the tribunal in that case [...] while that judgment is not technically res judicata, for there is no identity of the parties, it constitutes authoritative case law which the Tribunal will follow."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2142
Keywords:
case law; consequence; decision; difference; exception; finality of judgment; formal requirements; grounds; judgment of the tribunal; procedure before the tribunal; res judicata; same parties;
Judgment 2122
93rd Session, 2002
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant submitted her candidacy for a post of legal assistant. Her application was not taken into consideration because she did not fulfil the eligibility conditions set out in the notice of competition. She submits that there is a contradiction between the provisions of Staff Regulation Article 30 and those of Rule of Application No. 2 which sets out conditions for eligibility. The Tribunal finds "no contradiction between the provisions of Staff Regulation Article 30 and those of Rule of Application No. 2. [...] Contrary to what the complainant appears to suggest, the fact that Article 30(1) of the Staff Regulations says that the 'selection of candidates shall be based on qualifications' does not preclude the setting of eligibility conditions. [...] The eligibility conditions provided for in Rule No. 2 offend against no provision of the Staff Regulations. [...] The complainant did not meet all the conditions set in the notice of competition, and the Agency was therefore right to reject her application."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 30 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS GOVERNING OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; complainant; condition; criteria; degree; difference; enforcement; grounds; post; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2120
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
A paragraph of a notice issued by the Organisation's secretariat stipulates that the spouse of a staff member shall normally not be employed in the same department as the staff member. The Tribunal considers that "the provision improperly discriminates between candidates for appointment based on their marital status and family relationship [...]. Discrimination on such grounds is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, general principles of law and those which govern the international civil service, as well as international instruments on human rights. [...] All forms of improper discrimination are prohibited. What is improper discrimination? It is, at least in the employment context, the drawing of distinctions between staff members or candidates for appointment on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics. Manifestly, the fact that two staff members may be married to each other is not relevant to their competence or the capacity of either one of them to fulfil their obligations. and, if it is thought that marital or intimate personal relationships between staff members may create management problems, such problems must be dealt with in ways that do not discriminate against either of them as a result of such relationships. The Tribunal notes that [the notice] as it is written, besides being too broad, is not even effective in dealing with the presumed possibility of undue influence or favouritism for it is silent on non-marital intimate relationships. It also fails to deal with marriages taking place after appointment".
Keywords:
administrative instruction; assignment; breach; candidate; competition; definition; difference; equal treatment; family relationship; general principle; grounds; international civil service principles; international instrument; official; organisation; post; provision; publication; qualifications; staff member's duties; terms of appointment; un charter; universal declaration of human rights;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant assumes that the provisions of a notice issued by the Organisation's secretariat, being subordinate legislation, are incompatible with the corresponding provisions of the primary legislation, namely the Staff Rules. The Tribunal considers that the notice "does not merely implement or clarify the Staff Rule; it purports to extend its reach substantially. It cannot stand."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; condition; definition; difference; enforcement; limits; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purport; purpose; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2097
92nd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"Most contracts are entered into because both parties think it is to their economic advantage to do so. Where there is great disparity in bargaining power [...] the law will impose constraints upon the more powerful. In the international civil service that is one of the functions of the staff rules, and where these are inadequate, the Tribunal will intervene to redress the balance through the application of general principles of international civil service law."
Keywords:
contract; difference; enforcement; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; right; staff regulations and rules; tribunal;
Consideration 18
Extract:
Because of serious financial difficulties the organisation had to employ the complainants simultaneously under a fixed- term appointment at half-time and a short-term part-time appointment. After being restored to their full-time fixed-term status they complained about the rates of remuneration received by them under their short-term contracts. "The principle which guarantees equal remuneration for work of equal value [...] is designed to prevent discrimination by employers between employees and to ensure that persons performing different work of the same or similar value shall receive equal remuneration. The organization is right to submit that its most common application is to the classification or grading of jobs [...]. That principle was never intended to apply so as to give rise to a claim by an individual to be paid at the same rate for all work which he or she performs: differential rates for work performed under different conditions, such as overtime to take a common example, are not discriminatory. In the present case there is nothing improper in the who's paying lower rates to persons such as the complainants doing temporary work on a short-term basis."
Keywords:
amount; budgetary reasons; condition; contract; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; fixed-term; general principle; official; organisation; overtime; part-time employment; post classification; safeguard; salary; scale; short-term; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainants worked simultaneously under a fixed-term appointment at half-time and a short-term part-time appointment. "While it is unusual to find an employee working simultaneously for a single employer under two different contracts of employment, there is nothing inherently illegal about such an arrangement."
Keywords:
contract; difference; exception; fixed-term; official; organisation; part-time employment; short-term; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2092
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"When the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. Where, however, [...] he rejects those recommendations his duty to give reasons is not fulfilled by simply saying that he does not agree with the appeal body."
Keywords:
acceptance; advisory opinion; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
Judgment 2080
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant's contract was not renewed upon expiry. "Interim Staff Rule 4.4.02(b) provides that separation as a result of the expiration of an appointment shall not be regarded as a termination [...] Rule 9.1.01(b) defines termination [...] as any separation initiated by the Director-General, other than the expiration of a contract. Therefore, the question of any termination indemnity payable to the complainant does not arise."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: OPCW INTERIM STAFF RULE 4.4.02(B), OPCW INTERIM STAFF RULE 9.1.01(B)
Keywords:
consequence; contract; decision; definition; difference; executive head; non-renewal of contract; official; provision; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; terminal entitlements; termination of employment;
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 2027
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"A quantitative difference in duties rather than a difference in their nature or intrinsic importance is not a decisive criterion on which to base a difference in grade between two officials who perform exactly the same duties."
Keywords:
criteria; difference; grade; official; post; post classification; post description;
Judgment 1990
89th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In the competition, the English-speaking and French-speaking candidates were not in the same situation, so criteria were needed that took account of the differences. The matter becomes more complex if account is taken of candidates whose mother tongue is neither English nor French. [...] Since one of the requirements of the competition - and the post in question - was a good knowledge of the two main working languages, it was not unfair to provide for tests in one language only and apply an adequate correction factor to all candidates who were non-English-speaking. Such a solution redresses the balance and goes some way to ensuring equality between the candidates. Provided that it really is adequate, a correction factor does not impair the right to equal treatment."
Keywords:
candidate; compensatory measure; competition; criteria; difference; equal treatment; knowledge of languages; qualifications; safeguard;
Judgment 1866
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant considers that he is discriminated against in comparison with his colleagues who live in towns where the organisation subsidises creche places. "The principle of equality of treatment only applies between staff members in a similar situation. In the material case, staff members whose place of residence is Munich or The Hague, where there are subsidised creches, benefit from the same treatment. But staff members, such as the complainant, who decide to reside in another location and do not wish to place their child in these subsidised creches, are not in a similar situation."
Keywords:
criteria; dependent child; difference; equal treatment; general principle; residence; social benefits;
Judgment 1792
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Someone who intervenes in a complaint [...] may not put forward any pleas but the complainant's. The intervener must have the same claims as the complainant and seek the same redress on the strength of the same pleas." (See Judgments 365 and 366.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 365, 366
Keywords:
application for execution; claim; complaint; difference; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; new claim; new plea;
Judgment 1560
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainant had a temporary appointment. The Staff Regulations and Rules distinguish such an appointment both from a permanent and a fixed-term one and from a traineeship and supernumerary employment. It differs in particular from a fixed-term appointment in that it is expected from the outset to be a fairly short stint, with no more than a few brief extensions, whereas the fixed-term appointment is commonly extended and may even afford the basis of a career in the Organization".
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 104.8
ILOAT Judgment(s): 444, 1116
Keywords:
career; contract; definition; difference; duration of appointment; fixed-term; short-term; staff regulations and rules; successive contracts;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
