|
|
 |
|
|
Nationality (65,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Nationality
Total judgments found: 43
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4604
135th Session, 2023
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay him a repatriation grant upon his separation from service.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; nationality; repatriation allowance;
Judgment 4593
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of his right to supplementary days of annual leave for “travelling time”.
Consideration 11
Extract:
As regards the [...] plea alleging that the withdrawal of the complainant’s travelling time constitutes discrimination as it is based on nationality, the Tribunal notes that the criterion used by the Organisation, which is based on entitlement to expatriation or foreign residence allowance, is relevant to the purpose of travelling time, as it concerns the distinction made between an official’s country of origin and her or his place of employment. The complainant’s argument that use of this new criterion results in discrimination based on nationality is in any event ineffective in the context of the present dispute. Indeed, the objection raised in this regard is, in fact, an objection to the conditions on which the expatriation or foreign residence allowance is awarded, rather than travelling time.
Keywords:
discrimination; nationality; travel time;
Judgment 4339
131st Session, 2021
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the change of her nationality for administrative purposes.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; late appeal; nationality;
Judgment 4293
130th Session, 2020
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post.
Consideration 20
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues that the Administration did not pay due regard to equitable geographical representation because at the time of the interview and selection, the country of the selected candidate’s nationality was over-represented. [...] [I]n Judgment 3652, consideration 25, for example, the Tribunal recalled the principle that possession of the nationality of a country which is non-represented or under-represented in the geographic distribution of staff members is only to be taken into account when candidates are equally well qualified.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3652
Keywords:
geographical distribution; nationality; selection procedure;
Judgment 2925
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[I]t is neither unreasonable nor discriminatory for an international organisation to establish objective criteria, applicable in all cases, on the basis of which it may presume a person has made his or her permanent residence in a particular country. And in establishing objective criteria, it is neither unreasonable nor discriminatory to set specific periods of permanent residency. Further, it is not unreasonable or discriminatory to select different periods for those who are taking up duty in the country of their nationality and those who are taking up duty in a country of which they are not nationals."
Keywords:
allowance; criteria; duty station; equal treatment; nationality; permanent appointment; residence;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The location of an employee's permanent home is a proper criterion for the award of an expatriation allowance, and the selection of nationality and permanent residence as objective facts by reference to which it may be determined whether his or her permanent home is or is not the country in which he or she will be working is appropriate and adapted to the general circumstances of a large workforce comprised of many different nationalities."
Keywords:
allowance; criteria; duty station; home; nationality; permanent appointment; residence;
Judgment 2870
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6, 9 and 15
Extract:
The complaints raise the question whether Article 71 of the Office's Service Regulations - which provides for the payment of an education allowance to employees who are not nationals of the country in which they are serving and, in certain limited circumstances, to nationals of that country - offends the principle of equality. The complainants contend that, at least for the purposes of post-secondary education, Article 71 proceeds by reference to an irrelevant consideration - nationality - and, if it does not, the different treatment directed by that article is neither appropriate nor adapted to the difference involved.
"[N]ationality is the primary distinction mandated by Article 71 [...]."
"In principle, the nationality of the employee is properly to be regarded as a relevant difference warranting different treatment, including with respect to post-secondary education."
"An international organisation such as the EPO, with a large workforce composed of many different nationalities, is entitled to proceed by reference to a rule applicable to all non nationals provided that the rule is appropriate and adapted to their general circumstances. And that is so even if its application in individual cases is less than perfect. Article 71 of the Service Regulations is appropriate and adapted to the general circumstances of the children of non-nationals."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 71 of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2313, 2638
Keywords:
allowance; difference; education expenses; equal treatment; nationality; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2865
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
Article 72 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office, the EPO's secretariat, concerns the expatriation allowance. Article 72(1) reads as follows:
"An expatriation allowance shall be payable to permanent employees who, at the time they take up their duties or are transferred:
a) hold the nationality of a country other than the country in which they will be serving, and
b) were not permanently resident in the latter country for at least three years, no account being taken of previous service in the administration of the country conferring the said nationality or with international organisations."
"The country in which the permanent employee is permanently resident, within the meaning of Article 72(1)(b) of the Service Regulations, is that in which he or she is effectively living, that is to say the country with which he or she maintains the closest objective and factual links. The closeness of these links must be such that it may reasonably be presumed that the person concerned is resident in the country in question and intends to remain there. A permanent employee interrupts his or her permanent residence in a country when he or she effectively leaves that country with the intention - which must be objectively and reasonably credible in the light of all the circumstances - to settle for some length of time in another country (see Judgment 2653, under 3)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 72(1) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2653
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; condition; definition; duty station; intention of parties; member state; nationality; non-resident allowance; official; organisation; payment; period; residence; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2712
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Organization appointed a candidate who did not meet one of the conditions stipulated in the vacancy announcement. "[T]he fact that the appointment of the successful candidate, who happens to be Lebanese, conveniently enabled WIPO to achieve some of its management goals, such as that of increasing the proportion of women in senior management positions or that of the geographical distribution of its officials [...] is [...] irrelevant in this case. However legitimate these goals may be, they could not override the Organization's obligation to appoint to the post in question a candidate who possessed the required qualifications and experience initially stipulated. Geographical origin could be taken into consideration only if the opposing candidates were of equal merit."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; criteria; geographical distribution; increase; nationality; organisation; organisation's duties; place of origin; post; professional experience; purpose; qualifications; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2639
103rd Session, 2007
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Both under the UN Staff Rules and the WTO Staff Rules, the Organization recognises only one nationality for each staff member; a staff member's nationality is determined at the time of appointment and a staff member's home is deemed to be in the country of which the staff member is a national, unless there are compelling reasons to make an exception."
Keywords:
appointment; date; exception; grounds; home; nationality; official; place of origin; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2638
103rd Session, 2007
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The main justification for granting benefits such as home leave or an education grant to some staff members is not that the beneficiaries have a particular nationality, but that their duty station is not in their recognised home country. Far from being discriminatory, such practices, which moreover exist in most international organisations, are designed to restore a degree of equality between officials serving in a foreign country and those who are working in a country where they normally have their home. The two categories cannot be regarded as being in identical situations. Consequently, according to firm precedent, the principle of equality must not lead to their being treated in an identical manner when a difference in treatment is appropriate and adapted (see Judgment 2313 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2313
Keywords:
allowance; breach; difference; duty station; education expenses; equal treatment; general principle; home; home leave; nationality; official; organisation's duties; place of origin; practice; purpose; rule of another organisation;
Judgment 2637
103rd Session, 2007
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"So far as concerns the education grant, the argument of discrimination against persons who are the children of international civil servants must [...] be rejected. [The Tribunal considers that] the purpose of the grant is not to confer a financial benefit but to enable a child of a staff member to be educated in the mother tongue of his or her parent and, ordinarily, that will be the language of the country with which the staff member has the closest connection."
Keywords:
allowance; breach; dependent child; education expenses; equal treatment; nationality; official; parent; place of origin; purpose;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[I]t is convenient to note the different but related purposes of home leave and education grant. The purpose of home leave is not to confer a financial benefit or to make a monetary concession (see Judgment 937). Rather, as pointed out in Judgment 2389, it is 'to enable staff members who, owing to their work, spend a number of years away from the country with which they have the closest personal or material ties to return there in order to maintain those connections'. Similarly, the purpose of the education grant is made explicit by UN Staff Regulation 3.2(c), namely, to provide for a staff member 'serving in a country whose language is different from his or her own and who is obliged to pay tuition for the teaching of the mother tongue to a dependent child attending a local school in which the instruction is given in a language other than his or her own'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 937, 2389
Keywords:
allowance; dependent child; difference; duty station; education expenses; home leave; nationality; official; organisation's interest; payment; period; place of origin; purpose; rule of another organisation;
Judgment 2597
102nd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The expatriation allowance [...] is intended to compensate for certain disadvantages suffered by persons who are obliged, because of their work, to leave their country of origin and settle abroad. The disadvantages are indeed greater for them than for those who do not have the nationality of the country of their duty station either, but who have been living in that country for quite a long time before taking up their duties. Equal treatment demands that the provisions establishing the right of international civil servants to receive an expatriation allowance take fair and reasonable account of these different situations. The length of time for which foreign permanent employees have lived in the country where they will be serving, before they take up their duties, therefore forms an essential criterion for determining whether they may receive this allowance. It has been held that the period of three years' residence required by Article 72(1)b) of the Service Regulations is not unreasonable (see Judgment 1864, under 6)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 72(1)b) of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1864
Keywords:
allowance; compensatory measure; criteria; duty station; equal treatment; nationality; non-resident allowance; purpose; residence; time limit;
Judgment 2569
102nd Session, 2007
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The vacancy notice of the post the complainant applied for stipulated that nationals of all Member States of CERN - including Switzerland - could apply. She was selected for the post but was dismissed after CERN discovered that in her application form she had stated that she held Swiss nationality whereas she had not yet acquired it. "[W]hile it is true that the fact that the complainant was married to a Swiss national should in principle have enabled her to obtain Swiss nationality under the 'facilitated naturalisation' procedure, it is equally true that at the time she filled out her application form she did not hold Swiss nationality and had not even applied for it. [...] By making a false declaration, the complainant was guilty of misconduct which, when it came to light after her recruitment, was sufficient to invalidate her appointment and to justify the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the grounds that she fell short of the standards of loyalty and integrity that the Organization is entitled to expect of its staff. Although the complainant maintains that by imposing the disputed sanction the defendant breached the terms of her appointment and the applicable provisions of CERN’s Staff Rules and Regulations, she does not substantiate those allegations in any way, nor does she identify any breach of the rules of procedure followed by the Organization. The complaint must therefore be dismissed."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; date; disciplinary measure; marital status; member state; misconduct; misrepresentation; nationality; organisation; post; reinstatement; safeguard; staff member's duties; termination of employment; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2549
101st Session, 2006
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10, 11 and 13
Extract:
The complainant, a Danish national, was employed by the ILO from 3 January 2002 to 2 January 2005. She had entered into a registered partnership with her same-sex partner. On taking up her functions, she submitted a Certificate of Registered Partnership drawn up in accordance with the Danish Act on registered partnership and asked to be granted dependency benefits, designating her partner as her spouse. Her request was rejected. The Office stated that it was "in a position to recognise same-sex marriages immediately where the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality recognises such marriages." It has in fact recently recognised such same-sex marriages where the national legislation defines same-sex marriages as spousal relationships.
"The question is whether the broad interpretation of the term 'spouse' already given by the Office in the case of a marriage recognised by the legislation of the country of the staff member's nationality should have been extended to unions between same-sex partners which are not expressly designated as marriages under the national law of the staff member concerned. The Tribunal feels that a purely nominalistic approach to this issue would be excessively formalistic and is inappropriate in view of the fact that the situation varies from one country to another and that great care must be taken not to treat officials placed in comparable situations unequally: it is not because a country has opted for legislation that admits same-sex unions while refusing to describe them as marriages that officials who are nationals of that State should necessarily be denied certain rights. As pointed out in Judgment 1715 [...], there may be situations in which the status of spouse can be recognised in the absence of a marriage, provided that the staff member concerned can show the precise provisions of local law on which he or she relies. It is therefore necessary to determine whether in the present case the provisions of Danish law enable the complainant and her partner to be considered as 'spouses' in the meaning of the applicable regulations."
After having examined the provisions of the Danish Act on registered partnership, the Tribunal finds that "the Director-General was wrong [...] to refuse to recognise the status of spouse for the complainant's partner [and orders] the ILO [to] give full effect to this ruling by granting the complainant the benefits denied to her during the time of her employment".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1715
Keywords:
analogy; applicable law; burden of proof; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; interpretation; judicial review; marital status; member state; nationality; official; provision; refusal; request by a party; right; same-sex marriage; social benefits; status of complainant;
Judgment 2480
100th Session, 2006
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2 and 4
Extract:
The complainant takes issue with an ILO circular which concerned matrimonial property rights. It informed foreign nationals, like himself, who were married outside Switzerland with no marriage contract, that Switzerland was treating such persons as subject to the Swiss regime of joint ownership of property acquired after marriage (participation aux acquêts). He holds that by accepting such "instructions" from the Swiss Government, the Organization caused him undue financial hardship and "deep moral suffering". The Tribunal considers that the circular was "simply the transmission by the ILO to its staff members resident in Geneva of information received from the local 'Chambre des notaires'. [...] The publication by an international organisation for its staff members of purely objective information of this sort relating to local private law is manifestly not a matter falling within the Tribunal's field of competence."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 451, Series 6
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; domestic law; headquarters official; information note; marital status; material injury; moral injury; nationality; official; organisation; publication; written rule;
Judgment 2389
98th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Under [Staff] Rule [105.3], it is not sufficient for entitlement to home leave that internationally recruited staff members be serving in a country other than that of which they are nationals; they must also meet the required conditions. Thus, paragraph 2a of the Rule stipulates that a staff member shall be eligible for home leave provided that while performing his official duties he continues to reside in a country other than that of which he is a national. This condition is clearly not met in the case of a staff member who lived in his home country only during his early childhood and who, at the time of his appointment, had been residing for several decades, practically without a break, in the country where he performs his official duties."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU Staff Rule 105.3
Keywords:
appointment; condition; difference; duty station; home leave; nationality; non-local status; official; provision; residence; right; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The home country "is not necessarily that of the staff member's nationality. It could be the country with which he has the closest connection outside the country in which he is employed (see Judgment 1985, under 9), for instance the home country of his wife or of children whom he may have adopted or taken in but who he believes should keep up their connections with their native environment. Thus, according to Staff Rule 105.3, paragraph 4c, the Director General, in exceptional circumstances, may authorise a staff member to take home leave in a country other than the country of his nationality, provided that the latter can show that he maintained his normal residence in that other country for a prolonged period preceding his appointment, that he continues to have close family or personal ties in that country and that his taking home leave there would not be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU Staff Regulation 5.3 and Staff Rule 105.3, paragraph 4c
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1985
Keywords:
adoption; appointment; burden of proof; condition; definition; dependent child; difference; duty station; exception; executive head; family relationship; home leave; nationality; official travel; period; place of origin; residence; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he purpose of home leave is to enable staff members who, owing to their work, spend a number of years away from the country with which they have the closest personal or material ties to return there in order to maintain those connections. Regulation 5.3, which denies home leave to staff members whose home country is the country of their official duty station or who continue to reside in their home country, is therefore self-explanatory. Regulation 4.5, paragraph 2, reflects the same reasoning, insofar as it provides that a staff member may lose entitlement to home leave if, following a change in his residential status, he is, in the opinion of the Director General, deemed to be a permanent resident of any country other than that of his nationality, provided that the Director General considers that the continuation of such entitlement would be contrary to the purposes for which the benefit was created."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU Staff Regulations 4.5, paragraph 2, and 5.3
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; condition; consequence; difference; duty station; executive head; family relationship; home leave; nationality; official; period; place of origin; purpose; refusal; residence; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2357
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Where a person seeks to bring himself or herself within an exception to a general rule - here, the rule that an education allowance is not payable to persons serving in their own country - it is for that person to establish that he or she falls within the exception."
Keywords:
allowance; burden of proof; condition; duty station; education expenses; exception; nationality; official; written rule;
Judgment 2021
90th Session, 2001
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant contends that the opinion of the President of the Tribunal was tainted with bias since he has the same nationality as a few of the organisation's senior officers. "This is simply unacceptable. International organisations by definition have no nationality and their officers and employees are drawn from citizens of many countries; it is the organisations and not their officers who appear as defendants in cases before the Tribunal and the nationality of the judges who hear those cases is wholly irrelevant."
Keywords:
application for review; bias; nationality; president of the tribunal;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant fears that the opinion of a member of the Tribunal was tainted with bias since he has the same nationality as a few of the organisation's senior officers. "Applications for review are normally heard by the same panel which rendered the original decision; a complainant cannot, by making wholly frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations force one or more members of the panel to recuse themselves."
Keywords:
application for review; bias; general principle; nationality;
Judgment 1871
87th Session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that the Director-General gave paramount importance to the principle of geographic distribution, which resulted in him selecting the applicant who was second in the list recommended by the Selection Committee because that applicant was a national of an 'under-represented' country, while the complainant, who was in first place, was a national of an 'equitably represented' country. Analysis of the [Constitution, General Rules and Manual of the organization as well as] the facts of the case show that the Director-General was mistaken in his interpretation of these provisions. The Constitution [...] clearly states that the highest standards of efficiency and of technical competence' are of paramount importance in appointing staff. The Selection Committee is under the obligation to recommend for selection the candidate whose qualifications most closely meet the requirements of the post. Therefore the essential qualifications required are the priority criterion. Consideration of other criteria, including seniority of service and geographic distribution, which appear to be of a subsidiary nature, is only envisaged where several candidates are equally well qualified."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; criteria; geographical distribution; nationality; recommendation; selection board; seniority; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1864
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2, 5 and 6
Extract:
"Article 72(1) [of the Service Regulations] rules that employees who are nationals of a country other than the one they work in have no right to an expatriation allowance if, when taking up their duties, they had already been permanently resident there for more than three years. [W]hile the system could certainly be improved, it is in line with legal requirements that the applicable rules should precisely define the notion of 'expatriation', and fix a length of residence in the country prior to employment beyond which an employee may not be considered as expatriate. [N]aturally, the length of residence to be taken into account in order to make the distinction may be challenged, but in this matter the tribunal recognises the organisation's discretion, provided that the exercise of such power has no adverse consequences. in this case, a period of three years' residence beyond which the complainants may not be considered as 'expatriates' would appear reasonable."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 72 (1) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
ILOAT Judgment(s): 754
Keywords:
date; duty station; nationality; non-resident allowance; residence; staff regulations and rules;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
