|
|
 |
|
|
Interpretation of rules (899,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Interpretation of rules
Total judgments found: 31
< previous | 1, 2
Judgment 3781
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to reimburse her for school fees paid in respect of two dependent children.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The importance of establishing a settled interpretation of a phrase in a regulatory provision that is subject to more than one interpretation and an organisation’s obligations in the application of that interpretation are discussed in Judgment 3541, under 28.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3541
Keywords:
interpretation; interpretation of rules;
Judgment 3754
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 17
Extract:
It must be accepted that Staff Rule 1050.3 identifies the paramount consideration for reassignment as “the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity with due regard given to the performance, qualifications and experience of the staff member concerned”. Equally, however, it must be accepted that Staff Rule 1050.7 provides that the affected staff member “may be provided with training to enhance specific existing qualifications”. WHO contends in its reply that the use of the term “may be provided” denotes a possibility only and “certainly not an obligation to offer training”. This is true but the comment misses the point. This provision is more appropriately viewed as creating a tool that is available to WHO to facilitate reassignment in circumstances where an official may, with some retraining, be reassigned but without it, faces separation because the official’s post has been abolished. Also, Staff Rule 1050.7 should not be taken to impliedly limit WHO’s overarching obligation to make “reasonable efforts” to reassign. The type of training is, in this provision, cast in fairly narrow terms (to enhance specific existing qualifications). However, there may be cases where training of a broader character might appropriately be provided by WHO as part of the process of making “reasonable efforts” to reassign.
Keywords:
interpretation of rules;
Judgment 3701
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of his reckonable previous experience upon recruitment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[I]t would be helpful [...] to recall the basic principles of interpretation as stated by the Tribunal. Those principles state that the words of a provision are to be interpreted in good faith giving them their ordinary and natural meaning in their context. Where the language of the text is clear and unambiguous, the words must be given effect without looking outside of the text to determine the meaning. Texts which are ambiguous are to be construed in favour of the staff member.
Keywords:
interpretation; interpretation of rules;
Judgment 3539
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s decision to reject his requests for childcare allowances.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Where, as in this case, a provision is capable of more than one interpretation, the interpretation favouring a broader application for the benefit of staff members should be adopted rather than the interpretation of narrower application which could deprive staff members of the benefit.
Keywords:
interpretation of rules;
Judgment 3434
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the EPO had correctly concluded that the complainant was not entitled to the reimbursement he claimed for the school fees of his children.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The applicable principles for the interpretation of the EPO’s provisions for the reimbursement of school fees have been set out, for example, in Judgment 3310, under 7, as follows:
“The primary rule is that words in a statutory text are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning and any ambiguity in a provision should be construed in favour of staff and not of the Organisation (see Judgment 2276, consideration 4). The construction of any instrument of this character entails the Tribunal endeavouring to ascertain the objectives sought to be achieved by the instrument having regard to the language used.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2276, 3310
Keywords:
contra proferentem; interpretation of rules;
Judgment 3189
114th Session, 2013
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge their placement in the new grade structure following the entry into force of the administrative reform at Eurocontrol.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[The] duty of care [...] does not in any way imply a duty always to interpret texts in the staff’s favour."
Keywords:
duty of care; interpretation; interpretation of rules; judicial review; organisation's duties; written rule;
Judgment 2805
106th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4, 5 and 7
Extract:
The complainant lodged an appeal against the decision to reject his complaint of harassment, saying that his counsel would provide further details at a later date. The EPO dismissed the appeal due to the absence of a statement in support thereof. Before the Tribunal, the Organisation contends that the complainant failed to exhaust the internal means of redress.
"The issue at the centre of the complaint is whether it is necessary to provide grounds of appeal."
"There is no express provision in the Service Regulations or in Circular No. 286 requiring that grounds of appeal be specified when lodging an appeal."
"Where regulations and rules or other written documents are silent as to a matter, a term dealing with that matter may be implied, but only if it is so obviously comprehended within the text used in the regulations and rules or other document that its statement is unnecessary, or, if the term to be implied is necessary to give effect to some other term."
Keywords:
general principle; interpretation; interpretation of rules; no provision; provision; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2276
96th Session, 2004
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
When it comes to interpretation, the primary rule is that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see Judgment 1222, under 4) and any ambiguity in a provision should be construed in favour of staff and not of the Organization (see Judgment 1755, under 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1222, 1755
Keywords:
interpretation; interpretation of rules;
Judgment 2258
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(b)
Extract:
Statutory provisions must be interpreted in such a way that their true meaning is preserved, taking into account, inter alia, the actual letter of the provision, its origin, its aim and its place within the legal framework of an organisation, and without necessarily dwelling on inaccurate or inappropriate terms.
Keywords:
interpretation; interpretation of rules;
Judgment 1456
79th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The Tribunal will disregard documents produced by the parties on the preparatory work for the material rules. They are fragmentary and the scant information they contain is unlikely to prove helpful. "In construing the rules the Tribunal is bound to take an objective view and pay heed, in line with the method approved in international law, to their wording, context, purport and purpose."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; evidence; interpretation; interpretation of rules; purpose; submissions; written rule;
Judgment 1125
71st Session, 1991
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"When [a] text is clear there is no call for any interpretation or, in particular, to take account of the draughtsman's purpose. Only where two provisions of the same text or two parallel texts are at variance will any attempt be made to reconcile them."
Keywords:
criteria; interpretation of rules; purpose;
< previous | 1, 2
|
|
|
|
|
