Difference (603,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Difference
Total judgments found: 116
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 845
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Even if an examiner appointed after 1 January 1981 had been promoted contrary to the rapid promotion rule in CA/20/80, that is no reason for unlawfully promoting the complainant. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 614, a complainant may not rely on unlawful treatment which conferred benefit on other staff members: equality in law does not mean equality in the breach of it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 614
Keywords:
appointment; date; difference; effective date; equal treatment; exception; flaw; general principle; personal promotion; promotion;
Judgment 844
63rd Session, 1987
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In recruiting an employee who would be expected to acquire skills which were not necessarily an extension of skills he already possessed but required a different discipline altogether, the Agency should have made it quite clear to the applicant exactly what was involved so that he could judge whether or not he possessed the ability to acquire, retain and apply the new skills and knowledge."
Keywords:
assignment; difference; duty to inform; organisation's duties; post description;
Judgment 755
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The distinction between the reckoning for starting step and the reckoning for promotion is plain from the actual wording of the rules. The distinction warrants different treatment, and there is no breach of the principle of equality where the treatment is a fair, reasonable and logical outcome of circumstantial differences."
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 734
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant alleges breach of the principle of equality by a change in the rules governing the reckoning of professional experience from 1 January 1981 which is unfavourable to officials who, like himself, were recruited after that date. The Tribunal holds that the principle of equality does not require that officials appointed at different times should be treated alike.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 694, 695
Keywords:
administrative instruction; amendment to the rules; appointment; date; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; professional experience; provision; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 666
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
In this case, "the complainants' pleas and claims are not stated in identical terms, but in substance their case is the same. [...] All three complainants are in the same factual position. [...] A further fact that is material, in view of the nature of their claims, is that all three are married and have children [...] The material issue in the three cases is in essence the same and the Tribunal will rule on the single legal issue which the three complaints raise."
Keywords:
claim; difference; identical facts; joinder;
Judgment 663
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Although there are some differences between the four complaints, which impugn different decisions and put forward not quite identical claims, the decisions do form a single pattern of which each complaint challenges different elements, all four being closely and indeed inextricably linked by an identity of substance. They all raise the same preliminary issue, and one on which the Tribunal may give a single ruling, namely the receivability of a complaint challenging a general decision by the Council."
Keywords:
claim; difference; joinder;
Judgment 656
55th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Although the experience of examiners and translators counts only in part the reason is that it is of limited use to them in performing their duties at the EPO. But the reason why the experience of lawyers counts in full is that, as the EPO actually admits, they are able to adapt quickly to their new duties [...]. In other words, the difference in the calculation of seniority is due to a difference of fact and there is no tipping of the balance that needs to be offset. What the EPO describes as a kind of compensation in the counting of months is in fact a breach of the principle of equality."
Keywords:
difference; equal treatment; professional experience; rate; reckoning; seniority;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The EPO may determine questions of seniority according to more or less formal criteria. Thus it may, for example, discount months altogether in reckoning different groups of staff. Accordingly, the practice of discounting months short of one year in reckoning the seniority of all who are lawyers is not in itself a breach of the principle of equality. The breach of the principle lies in treating examiners and translators more favourably than lawyers."
Keywords:
criteria; difference; equal treatment; professional experience; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 598
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Military and technical co-operation service cannot be assimilated. [...] When the council decided to discount military service in reckoning professional experience, it meant and indeed could only mean military service as such. The President therefore erred in law in founding his decision on an assimilation of military and technical co-operation service."
Keywords:
cooperation service; difference; flaw; military service; professional experience; reckoning;
Judgment 597
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
See Judgment 598, consideration 5.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 598
Keywords:
cooperation service; difference; flaw; military service; professional experience; reckoning;
Judgment 568
51st Session, 1983
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
When the organisation [EPO] was created, it had to recruit a large staff; "when fixing the initial grade, [it had] to take into account experience gained, first in patent offices and, second, in industry generally. [...] The organisation distinguishes between the first and second categories. [...] In the opinion of the Tribunal the distinction is not unreal and the complainant has not shown any breach of [the principle of equality of treatment]."
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; grade; professional experience;
Judgment 554
50th Session, 1983
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The Tribunal stated in Judgment No. 486 that "the question for its decision was whether it was within its competence to enforce a rule of policy or practice. The Tribunal found that there was such a rule, but that since it conflicted with a staff rule, it did not create an obligation which the Tribunal was competent to enforce. [...] It is manifest from the judgment that the rule of policy or practice, by whatever evidence its existence was proved, was in this case unenforceable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 486
Keywords:
applicable law; application for review; difference; evidence; practice; precedence of rules; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 532
49th Session, 1982
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Insofar as a provision of the Service Regulations purports to provide that failing a decision by the President on an internal appeal within two months, a complaint may be duly filed with the Tribunal, "the provision must be treated as invalid because this is a matter of procedure which only the Tribunal's own Statute and Rules of court can settle."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; difference; iloat statute; precedence of rules; procedure before the tribunal; provision; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Consideration 1
Extract:
The declaration of recognition mentioned in Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal "recognises not only the Tribunal's competence but also the applicability of its Rules of court. An organisation which makes such a declaration accepts the provisions of the Statute and the Rules of court, and any provisions in its own rule book on the receivability of complaints filed with the Tribunal are of no effect, whether they comply with the Tribunal's rules or not."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
consequence; declaration of recognition; difference; enforcement; iloat statute; precedence of rules; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 506
48th Session, 1982
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organization adopted a more flexible approach in the application of the new rule: "Those [officials] appointed before the Finance Committee made its recommendation, who before had been informed of the possibility of qualifying for non-local status, or might have been, were still able to obtain such status despite the wording of the rule. There was strict application only to those appointed after the recommendation. The distinction between those appointed before and those appointed after rested on the fact that the former, unlike the latter, had or might have had the expectation of qualifying for non-local status some day."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; date; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; legitimate expectation; local status; non-local status; practice; promise; provision; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 460
46th Session, 1981
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[Benefits and allowances] appear to fall into two groups: a) benefits and allowances which are permanent or at least payable over a fairly lengthy period, such as the residence allowance, allowance for dependants, education benefit, expatriation allowance and language allowance; b) temporary benefits and allowances, payable for a limited period, such as the installation benefit, overtime pay [...] and pay for shift work".
Keywords:
allowance; difference; period;
Judgment 452
46th Session, 1981
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The organization's Governing Council decided to consider all general service officials, recruited after a certain date, as local staff and the Tribunal accepts that reinstatement is not the same as recruitment. But the fact that the Director-General could, consistent with the Council's declaration, have continued to reinstate non-local staff does not mean that he is required to do so. He is free to act as he wishes and the Tribunal cannot interfere.
Keywords:
appointment; condition; difference; discretion; general service category; local status; non-local status; reinstatement;
Judgment 442
46th Session, 1981
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"As a rule an official's comments on his subordinates do not give them any right to compensation; otherwise supervisors would express only guarded opinions about their subordinates, and that would be harmful to the organisation's efficiency. The most that can be said is that when a supervisor expresses an opinion which he knows to be untrue for a purely malicious purpose he, or the organisation, will be liable."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
allowance; application for review; consequence; difference; general principle; injury; liability; mistake of fact; organisation; purpose; right; supervisor; work appraisal;
Consideration 13(A)
Extract:
"A staff member may properly allege unfair treatment where general rules are not applied in the same way to all the staff members to which they are applicable, but he may not do so by comparing circumstances created by particular measures, such as agreements for the reappointment of particular officials. Such agreements will differ because the circumstances of each case differ, and there is no inequality of treatment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 404
Keywords:
application for review; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; individual decision; official; provision; reinstatement; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 435
45th Session, 1980
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2(A)
Extract:
The complainant claimed compensation for bodily injury in an appeal submitted to the internal appeals board. He claims compensation for loss of earning capacity resulting from the same injury in his claim to the Tribunal. The principle that the facts relied on in the internal proceedings should be the same as those relied on in the complaint to the Tribunal has not been infringed. However, in the internal appeal he claimed compensation of 18,000 francs but is now asking the Tribunal to grant him a larger sum. Insofar as he is seeking compensation exceeding 18,000 francs his complaint is irreceivable.
Keywords:
amount; complaint; difference; incapacity; internal appeal; invalidity; material damages; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 398
43rd Session, 1980
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Article 92 of the Eurocontrol Staff Regulations provides for the submission of a request or of a complaint. "A 'request' may be made only where a 'complaint' may not. [...] Any application challenging a decision must therefore be described and treated as a 'complaint', whatever it may be called [...]. By an application challenging a decision is meant any application for the quashing or amendment of a decision solely on the grounds of the facts underlying that decision."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 92 EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
difference; internal appeal;
Judgment 380
42nd Session, 1979
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
"If the end-product of the discussions [...] is a unilateral decision, 'consultation' is the appropriate word. If it is a bilateral decision, i.e. an agreement, 'negotiation' is appropriate. Decisions are reached after consultation; agreements after negotiation."
Keywords:
collective bargaining; consequence; consultation; decision; difference;
Consideration 21
Extract:
"Negotiation starts from equality of bargaining power [i.e. legal equality; economic strength may be unequal]; consultation supposes legal power to be in the hands of the decision-maker, diminished only by the duty to consult."
Keywords:
collective bargaining; consultation; difference;
Judgment 363
41st Session, 1978
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"It is an attractive idea that [the material rule] should be invoked only to the extent necessary to relieve the financial hardship. But that would mean a reimbursement and not an allowance. The object of an allowance is to settle in advance the difficult questions that often arise on reimbursement [...] and to let the staff member know from the first what he has to spend."
Keywords:
allowance; difference; purpose; refund;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
