|
|
 |
|
|
Residence (346,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Residence
Total judgments found: 48
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 5045
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; home leave; host state; repatriation allowance; residence;
Judgment 5044
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; home leave; host state; repatriation allowance; residence;
Judgment 5043
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; home leave; host state; repatriation allowance; residence;
Judgment 5042
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; home leave; host state; repatriation allowance; residence;
Judgment 5041
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; home leave; host state; repatriation allowance; residence;
Judgment 5039
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; home leave; host state; privileges and immunities; repatriation allowance; residence;
Judgment 5038
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; home leave; host state; privileges and immunities; repatriation allowance; residence;
Judgment 5037
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; home leave; host state; repatriation allowance; residence;
Judgment 5036
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; home leave; host state; repatriation allowance; residence;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he provision concerning home leave contained a clause that declared that '[a] staff member who has changed his/her residential status in such a way that he/she may, in the opinion of the Director General, be deemed to be a permanent resident of a country other than that of his/her nationality may lose or incur a change in his/her entitlement to home leave'. This element of the provision conferred a discretion in two respects. Firstly, a discretion was conferred on the Director General to 'deem' a staff member a permanent resident though, by necessary implication, there was a discretion not to deem a staff member a permanent resident. A multitude of considerations could potentially be relevant. The second element of discretion was that even if deemed a permanent resident, the staff member could either, as possible alternatives, lose an entitlement to home leave or incur a change in that entitlement. The provision does not expressly state who makes that assessment and on what basis though it is more likely than not, it is another discretionary power of some width, vested in the Director General.
Keywords:
discretion; home leave; interpretation; interpretation of rules; residence;
Judgment 4191
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his application for payment of an expatriation allowance.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has explained the rationale and context for the grant of the expatriation allowance, and given guidance as to the interpretation of the terms “permanently resident” for the purpose of Article 72(1)(b), in [...] Judgment 2865, under 4(b) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2865
Keywords:
expatriation allowance; interpretation; residence;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a permanent employee is “permanently resident in the [duty] country” if she or he had simply resided or lived there during the relevant period. The test is one of simple residence (see Judgments 1099, under 8, and 2596, under 3). [...] The fact that during the employee’s residence in the duty country she or he did not pay taxes there is also irrelevant (see, for example, Judgment 1099, under 8). Neither is it relevant that the employee travelled a lot due to the nature of her or his work (see, for example, Judgment 2596, under 5) so long as the employee has not interrupted her or his residence in the duty country in the sense stated in Judgment 2865, under 4(b). Neither is the status of the employee’s residence relevant in the sense stated, for example, in Judgment 2214, under 3.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1099, 2214, 2596, 2865
Keywords:
residence;
Judgment 4189
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her application for payment of an expatriation allowance.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal has explained the rationale and context for the grant of the expatriation allowance, and has given guidance as to the interpretation of the terms “permanently resident” for the purpose of Article 72(1)(b), in the following statements in Judgment 2865, under 4(b) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2865
Keywords:
expatriation allowance; interpretation; residence;
Judgment 4022
126th Session, 2018
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the WTO’s decision to grant him local recruitment status upon joining the Organization.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“[R]esident” in Staff Rule 103.1(a) means simple residence. There is nothing in the provision which shows that this is to be equated with “domicile”, “permanent abode”, whether the staff member considers herself or himself integrated locally, or would immediately leave Switzerland on leaving the employment to which recruited. A staff member is “resident”, and thus “locally recruited” under Staff Rule 103.1(a), if at the time of recruitment she or he is actually resident, or effectively lives, at an address within the stated distance. Staff Rule 103.1(a) is clear and unambiguous and therefore its terms are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see Judgment 3742, consideration 4). These terms provide that a person is locally recruited, if at the time of recruitment she or he resided at a place within 75 km from the Pont du Mont-Blanc in Geneva, regardless of the duration of that residence, unless she or he fell into the stated exceptions. The complainant did not fall within any of the stated exceptions and had resided and worked in Geneva for some sixteen years prior to being recruited. While in his Personal History Form he gave a United States address as his permanent address, he also gave his home address in Geneva as his present address. This signified that at the time of his recruitment he resided within the area identified in Staff Rule 103.1(a), which rendered him locally recruited.
It did not matter, as the complainant suggests, that although he “lived in Geneva for some time, he never applied for Swiss nationality”. This is in fact an admission that he was resident within the given area that rendered him locally recruited under Staff Rule 103.1(a). Neither did it matter, as the complainant further suggests, that he did not request the C permit which he held; owned no property in Switzerland; had worked with a company which was not subject to Swiss law; had always been paid by that company through his bank account in the United States (US), which he continued to maintain; possessed US credit cards; contributed to a pension account only in the US and participated in its social security scheme for retirement there only; continued to vote in US elections and to file US income tax declarations, which US law obliges him to do as a citizen; sends his children to summer school in the US and spends his annual summer holidays there with his family. Consequently, the first ground of the complaint is unfounded.
Keywords:
interpretation; residence;
Judgment 3509
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s refusal to send his mail to an address, which is not the declared residence address in his last retirement questionnaire.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; residence; retirement;
Judgment 3338
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who is serving in the Netherlands and who no longer has Dutch nationality, impugns the decision not to help him to obtain the non-permanent resident status and tax-free car registration.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; duty of care; residence;
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;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Although the purpose of the expatriation allowance has variously been described as that of "grant[ing] an allowance to [an] official who has no affinity with the country of his duty station" (Judgment 1150, under 6), to 'take account of certain disadvantages arising from being a foreigner newly installed in a country" (Judgment 1864, under 6), and to "compensate for certain disadvantages suffered by officials who are obliged to leave their country of origin and settle abroad' (Judgment 2864, under 3(a)), it is, perhaps, more appropriate to identify its purpose in terms of persons who have left their permanent home in one country to take up employment in another."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1150, 1864, 2864
Keywords:
allowance; compensatory allowance; definition; duty station; home; residence;
Judgment 2924
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he fact that a person was present in a country for the purpose of pursuing his or her studies may well be insufficient to establish permanent residence, particularly if there are strong links to another country."
Keywords:
allowance; criteria; permanent appointment; purpose; residence;
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 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 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 2292
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he fact that in connection with pension rights different rules apply according to the place of residence of retired staff members constitutes neither a breach of property rights nor a violation of the principle of equality, provided that the staff concerned are not deprived of any of the rights they enjoy under the statutory and regulatory provisions which apply to them, and that they have freely exercised their right of option."
Keywords:
equal treatment; official; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; provision; residence; written rule;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
