Removal expenses (348,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Removal expenses
Total judgments found: 9

• Judgment 3429

  
  119th Session, 2015
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint but awarded damages to the complainant because of the delay in the appeals procedure.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  administrative delay; complaint allowed; intervention; moral injury; removal expenses;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "The EPO was within its rights to set a reasonable maximum amount for the reimbursement of removal costs, based on an estimate provided or obtained."

  Keywords:

  removal expenses;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal considers that, according to the above provisions, the EPO has a duty to verify the appropriateness of the estimates provided. In the present case, as the estimates provided by the complainant were drastically higher than the average cost of a removal between the Netherlands and Italy, the EPO was required to investigate further, which it did by enquiring about the reasons for the higher price. The EPO also became aware of a much cheaper estimate, which the complainant had requested and received from another removal company and which was based on the same inventory list, but which he had refused. Contrary to the IAC minority opinion, the EPO was not required to choose one of the estimates submitted by the complainant. It is allowed to request additional estimates when necessary and to approve a ceiling amount, based on an actual estimate, for the reimbursement of removal costs.
  A provision such as Article 81 should not be interpreted literally if such a literal interpretation frustrates the purpose and object of the provision. The purpose and object of Article 81 is to ensure that a staff member is paid an adequate but not excessive amount for removal costs. Moreover, even interpreted literally, there is a condition precedent to reimbursement of removal costs, namely prior approval of an estimate. In the present case, there was no such prior approval of the amount now claimed."

  Keywords:

  removal expenses;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3086

  
  112th Session, 2012
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; removal expenses; retirement;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The European Patent Office paid the full amount of the costs occasioned by the complainant's move from Germany to France after he retired. The complainant emphasises that the removal firm did not do its work properly and caused him material injury. In his opinion, the EPO has incurred liability, particularly because it had urged him to place the move in the hands of that firm.
  "[W]hen an international organisation defrays the removal expenses of an official or former official, it does not follow that it becomes a party to the contract between the person concerned and the removal firm. Neither of the parties to this private law contract acts on behalf of the organisation. For the latter, the contract is res inter alios. This is all the more understandable given that it has no means of ascertaining whether the contract has been performed satisfactorily or, if necessary, of establishing the damage resulting from faulty performance."

  Keywords:

  contract; liability; material injury; organisation; payment; procedural flaw; removal expenses; retirement;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3074

  
  112th Session, 2012
  World Meteorological Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 15-16

  Extract:

  "[I]nternational organisations' staff members do not have a right to have all the conditions of employment laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career.
  [M]ost of those conditions [can] be altered during [their] employment as a result of amendments to those provisions. Of course the position is different if, having regard to the nature and importance of the provision in question, the complainant has an acquired right to its continued application. However, according to the case law established in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official's situation to his or her detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must therefore relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment within the meaning of Judgment 832 (in this connection see also Judgments 2089, 2682, 2696 or 2986). The conditions for the payment of removal expenses, in particular a limit on the volume of household goods which may be shipped at the Organization's expense, plainly do not have this character [...]."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986, 2089, 2682, 2696, 2986
  

  Keywords:

  acquired right; amendment to the rules; applicable law; appointment; breach; career; condition; contract; date; exception; limits; official; personal effects; provision; removal expenses; right; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1950

  
  89th Session, 2000
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  "So long as the complainant retains his residence in Germany, no matter how many other residences he may have established, he has not carried out a removal from that residence. A removal is not merely the establishment of a new residence but, and much more importantly, the abandonment of the former residence."

  Keywords:

  condition; removal expenses; residence; separation from service;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1438

  
  79th Session, 1995
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The complainant was denied a further extension of the period in which he was entitled to claim the refund of removal expenses. The Tribunal considers that "in accordance with its case law, [it] will not substitute its own views for those of the director-general in a matter in which he has discretion."

  Keywords:

  case law; discretion; executive head; judicial review; new time limit; refund; removal expenses; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1367

  
  77th Session, 1994
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 11 and 16

  Extract:

  "The dispute is about the time in which a staff member of WHO may exercise his right to removal of his household effects at the organization's expense upon retirement. [...] The Director-General's decision is arbitrary, not just because it fails to state the reasons for choosing the [...] new deadline for the refund of the costs of removal, but because it gives no consistent reply to the complainant's claim. It is a wrong exercise of discretion."

  Keywords:

  bias; breach; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; limits; refund; removal expenses; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 933

  
  65th Session, 1988
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Summary

  Extract:

  The complainant seeks to have papers concerning his removal expenses returned to him. The Tribunal holds that the complainant's claim is trivial and he has failed to give evidence of injury suffered from not having the originals.

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complainant; disclosure of evidence; lack of injury; removal expenses; request by a party;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 904

  
  64th Session, 1988
  Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "When the complainant was appointed, he was living in England and was paid removal expenses as head of family because at the time he had a dependent daughter. [...] Since the complainant no longer has any dependants and is divorced [...] he is entitled to the cost of removing only 40 cubic meters of personal effects".

  Keywords:

  dependant; removal expenses; separation from service;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 761

  
  59th Session, 1986
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "The refusal by the EPO to return the complainant's documents for the purpose of permitting him to take steps to perfect his claim for reimbursement is unfair and the complainant is entitled to relief on the ground that he was improperly prevented from having an opportunity of submitting the appropriate documents in support of his claim."

  Keywords:

  disclosure of evidence; flaw; material damages; moral injury; organisation; refund; refusal; removal expenses; request by a party;