Terms of appointment (249, 251, 252, 253, 968, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 945, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 666, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 661, 660, 686, 309, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 648, 654, 671, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 677, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 649, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 836,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Terms of appointment
Total judgments found: 128
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 5169
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reduce her “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Consideration 15
Extract:
Le Tribunal rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, la modification au détriment d’un fonctionnaire d’une disposition régissant sa situation ne constitue une violation d’un droit acquis que si elle bouleverse l’économie de son contrat d’engagement ou porte atteinte à une condition d’emploi fondamentale qui a été de nature à déterminer l’intéressé à entrer – ou, ultérieurement, à rester – en service. Pour qu’il y ait matière à éventuelle méconnaissance d’un droit acquis, il faut donc que la modification apportée au texte applicable porte sur une condition d’emploi présentant un caractère fondamental et essentiel (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4593, au considérant 10, 4398, au considérant 10, 4381, aux considérants 13 et 14, et 3074, au considérant 16, ainsi que la jurisprudence citée dans ces jugements). Le Tribunal ajoute que, dans le jugement 2972, au considérant 8, il a aussi été dit «[...] qu’un fonctionnaire n’a “pas de droit acquis pour ce qui est du montant effectif et du maintien du mode de calcul [d’une] indemnité. Au contraire, l’intéressé doit s’attendre aux modifications que les circonstances pourraient rendre nécessaires”» (voir également, à ce sujet, les jugements 666, au considérant 5, et 391, au considérant 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 391, 666, 2972, 3074, 4381, 4398, 4593
Keywords:
acquired right; terms of appointment;
Consideration 17
Extract:
Le Tribunal relève […] que, selon une jurisprudence constante reprise notamment dans le jugement 4028, au considérant 13, il est reconnu que «les fonctionnaires des organisations internationales n’ont nullement droit à se voir appliquer, tout au long de leur carrière et pendant leur retraite, l’ensemble des conditions d’emploi ou de retraite prévues par les dispositions statutaires ou réglementaires en vigueur à la date de leur recrutement. Ces conditions peuvent, pour la plupart, être modifiées, au cours de la relation d’emploi ou postérieurement, par l’effet d’amendements apportés à ces dispositions (voir aussi le jugement 3876, au considérant 7).»
Or, ainsi que le souligne à juste titre Eurocontrol dans ses écritures, les frais de voyage constituent un élément accessoire à la rémunération de la requérante et ne sont qu’un remboursement de frais dont les conditions sont fixées par un règlement d’application du Directeur général, qui peut en modifier les modalités. Ce remboursement fait partie des avantages qui restent en constante évolution au vu de la situation économique et dont le personnel ne peut légitimement s’attendre à ce qu’ils restent inchangés tout au long de leur carrière.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876, 4028
Keywords:
acquired right; terms of appointment; travel expenses;
Judgment 5165
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to withdraw her “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Considerations 11-13
Extract:
Le Tribunal rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, la modification au détriment d’un fonctionnaire d’une disposition régissant sa situation ne constitue une violation d’un droit acquis que si elle bouleverse l’économie de son contrat d’engagement ou porte atteinte à une condition d’emploi fondamentale qui a été de nature à déterminer l’intéressé à entrer – ou, ultérieurement, à rester – en service. Pour qu’il y ait matière à éventuelle méconnaissance d’un droit acquis, il faut donc que la modification apportée au texte applicable porte sur une condition d’emploi présentant un caractère fondamental et essentiel (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4593, au considérant 10, 4398, au considérant 10, 4381, aux considérants 13 et 14, et 3074, au considérant 16, ainsi que la jurisprudence citée dans ces jugements).
[…]
Le Tribunal relève ensuite que, selon une jurisprudence constante reprise notamment dans le jugement 4028, au considérant 13, il est reconnu que «les fonctionnaires des organisations internationales n’ont nullement droit à se voir appliquer, tout au long de leur carrière et pendant leur retraite, l’ensemble des conditions d’emploi ou de retraite prévues par les dispositions statutaires ou réglementaires en vigueur à la date de leur recrutement. Ces conditions peuvent, pour la plupart, être modifiées, au cours de la relation d’emploi ou postérieurement, par l’effet d’amendements apportés à ces dispositions (voir aussi le jugement 3876, au considérant 7).»
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3074, 3876, 4381, 4398, 4593
Keywords:
acquired right; terms of appointment;
Judgment 5164
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to withdraw his “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Considerations 14-16
Extract:
Le Tribunal rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, la modification au détriment d’un fonctionnaire d’une disposition régissant sa situation ne constitue une violation d’un droit acquis que si elle bouleverse l’économie de son contrat d’engagement ou porte atteinte à une condition d’emploi fondamentale qui a été de nature à déterminer l’intéressé à entrer – ou, ultérieurement, à rester – en service. Pour qu’il y ait matière à éventuelle méconnaissance d’un droit acquis, il faut donc que la modification apportée au texte applicable porte sur une condition d’emploi présentant un caractère fondamental et essentiel (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4593, au considérant 10, 4398, au considérant 10, 4381, aux considérants 13 et 14, et 3074, au considérant 16, ainsi que la jurisprudence citée dans ces jugements).
[…]
Le Tribunal relève ensuite que, selon une jurisprudence constante reprise notamment dans le jugement 4028, au considérant 13, il est reconnu que «les fonctionnaires des organisations internationales n’ont nullement droit à se voir appliquer, tout au long de leur carrière et pendant leur retraite, l’ensemble des conditions d’emploi ou de retraite prévues par les dispositions statutaires ou réglementaires en vigueur à la date de leur recrutement. Ces conditions peuvent, pour la plupart, être modifiées, au cours de la relation d’emploi ou postérieurement, par l’effet d’amendements apportés à ces dispositions (voir aussi le jugement 3876, au considérant 7).»
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3074, 3876, 4028, 4381, 4398, 4593
Keywords:
acquired right; terms of appointment;
Judgment 5014
140th Session, 2025
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her request to be reassigned to a different team, and consequently to a different reporting line, as well as her request for a new assessment of her position.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; grade; terms of appointment; title of post;
Judgment 4973
139th Session, 2025
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the step assigned to him at the time of his recruitment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; grade; step; terms of appointment; time bar;
Judgment 4624
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant takes issue with the type of contract successively awarded to her by the ILO and seeks adequate compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; contract; terms of appointment;
Judgment 4550
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 and implemented in particular by Circular No. 356.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]s the Tribunal has already stated on several occasions, staff members of an international organisation enjoy the right to association freely and there is an implicit clause in their contract of employment compelling the organisation to respect that right (see, in particular, Judgments 496, consideration 6, 3414, consideration 4, and 4482, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 496, 3414, 4482
Keywords:
contract; freedom of association; terms of appointment;
Judgment 4482
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14.
Consideration 12
Extract:
This case presents a situation where a remedy, which may intrude into the exercise of power by the Administrative Council, is appropriate to protect a fundamental right of a member of staff and, indeed, all members of staff which was a term of their appointment as officials of the EPO. The adoption of those parts of the new rules concerning elections by decision CA/D 2/14 entailed non-observance of that term of appointment. There can be no doubt that freedom of association is a well-recognised and acknowledged universal right which all workers should enjoy. It is recognised as a right by the Tribunal (see Judgment 4194). It is a right recognised in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, Article 2(a), as an obligation for all ILO Member States arising from the very fact of their membership in the ILO. Freedom of association is a right recognised by the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 22, and also by the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 8.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4194
Keywords:
compensation; freedom of association; ilo instruments; international instrument; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3938
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm her appointment due to the rejection of her application for a work visa by the authorities of the country of her duty station.
Considerations 11 and 12
Extract:
[The Organization] advised the complainant that [...] the [host State] authorities [...] would not issue her an entry visa [...].
As the complainant’s appointment was conditional on her obtaining a work visa, her appointment was not confirmed. It follows that as she was not a UNESCO official, her complaint is irreceivable and will be dismissed.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3726
123rd Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her claim for compensation on account of labour exploitation and compulsory labour.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal does not consider that the general nature of clause 11 renders it illegal, as the complainant submits, but considers that the IOM Administration, with the knowledge of the ICSC job classification system, would have been aware that such a clause permits it to assign only such additional tasks and responsibilities to the complainant as were compatible with her G.5 grade.
Keywords:
terms of appointment;
Judgment 3483
120th Session, 2015
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the FAO’s decision not to pay her a daily subsistence allowance during her appointment in Rome.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; daily subsistence allowance; decision quashed; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3351
118th Session, 2014
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the internal appeal was time-barred, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint seeking the payment of an allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; duty station; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3257
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision to offer him a one-year extension of his fixed-term contract rather than the two-year extensions he had previously received.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; discretion; extension of contract; fixed-term; offer; performance report; procedural flaw; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3188
114th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to update her job description, not to select her for a G-6 position and her alleged subsequent demotion.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that a failure to respond to a legitimate request of a staff member within a reasonable time may be deemed to be a refusal of the request if the staff member elects to accept that refusal. Additionally, egregious delay in responding to a reasonable request may involve a breach of the obligation to deal with the staff member in good faith. In the present case, the failure of the IAEA to provide the complainant with an updated job description over several years involved a violation of her rights for which she is entitled to compensation."
Keywords:
compensation; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; refusal; request by a party; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3135
113th Session, 2012
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Tribunal […] draws attention to the fact that, generally speaking, the terms of employment of staff members of international organisations may vary according to amendments of the existing staff regulations or staff rules and that such references to the original provisions as may be contained in their employment contracts do not prevent this.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; applicable law; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3112
113th Session, 2012
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant did not sign the offer of appointment within the time limit prescribed by the organisation.
"As the complainant herself acknowledged, there were still unresolved issues that she wished to have settled before entering into a contract. Accordingly, it cannot be said that at that time there was any contractual relationship between the parties, let alone an employment relationship. As there was no employment relationship, the complainant was not an official of the organisation. It follows that the Tribunal is not competent to hear the complaint and that, therefore, it must be dismissed."
Keywords:
acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; contract; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; refusal; status of complainant; terms of appointment; time limit;
Judgment 3090
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal may rule on any employment relationship arising between an organisation and its staff, whether under the terms of a contract or under Staff Regulations. If a decision to appoint an employee, or to terminate his or her employment, is challenged on the grounds that it affects the rights of the person concerned which the Tribunal is competent to safeguard, the Tribunal must rule on the lawfulness of the disputed decision. It is immaterial whether the employee in question was recruited under a contract and whether that contract was for a fixed term. (See Judgment 1272, under 9.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; contract; duration of appointment; official; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; terms of appointment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[WIPO's] employment relationship with the complainant always rested on short-term contracts [...]. These contracts were systematically renewed without any notable breaks, with the result that [...] the complainant pursued a career in the Organization for more than seven years, i.e. until the expiry of [her last] contract. This long succession of short-term contracts gave rise to a legal relationship between the complainant and WIPO which was equivalent to that on which permanent staff members of an organisation may rely. In considering that the complainant belonged to the category of short-term employees to whom the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules do not apply and who do not enjoy legal protection comparable to that enjoyed by other staff members, the defendant failed to recognise the real nature of its legal relationship with the complainant. In so doing it committed an error of law and misused the rules governing short-term contracts."
Keywords:
abuse of power; applicable law; career; contract; difference; extension of contract; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; permanent appointment; short-term; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; temporary-indefinite; terms of appointment;
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 keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2972
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Existence of an acquired right to work night shifts and to receive the corresponding allowance.
"An acquired right is breached when 'an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations by altering fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced him or her to stay on' (see Judgment 2682, under 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2682
Keywords:
acceptance; acquired right; amendment to the rules; breach; condition; contract; terms of appointment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An acquired right may derive 'from the terms of appointment, the staff rules or from a decision' (see Judgment 2696, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2696
Keywords:
acquired right; decision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It was recognised in Judgment 666 that 'an allowance may form an essential part of the official's contract [...] and its abolition would therefore constitute breach of [an] acquired right'. However, it was also said in that case that an official 'has no acquired right to the actual amount of the allowance or to continuance of any particular method of reckoning it. Indeed, he must expect these to change as circumstances change'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 666
Keywords:
acquired right; allowance; amount; contract; night differential; payment; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2918
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal's Statute [...] provides that: 'The Tribunal shall also be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations of any [...] international organization [...] which has addressed to the Director-General a declaration, recognizing [...] the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for this purpose, as well as its Rules of Procedure, and which is approved by the Governing Body.' The consequence of that provision is that the Tribunal may hear the two complaints only if the complainant was, at the relevant times, an official of the [organization] and the [organization] has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence of tribunal; limits; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
