|
|
 |
|
|
Same-sex marriage (643, 682,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Same-sex marriage
Total judgments found: 11
Judgment 4931
139th Session, 2025
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to recognise his same-sex marriage for the purpose of dependency benefits entitlements.
Consideration 10
Extract:
It is true that in Judgment 2643, consideration 6, there is a discussion that might be thought to embrace and establish the legal position in relation to both registered partnerships (the position then under consideration) and same-sex marriages. Even if, on a fair reading of that discussion it applied to both, which may be doubted, the observations about same-sex marriages were clearly obiter dicta. That is to say, it is not a pronouncement of the law binding either ITU nor this Tribunal by operation of the principle of stare decisis. The other judgments also relied on by ITU are Judgments 3203 and 2826.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2643, 2826, 3203
Keywords:
interpretation of rules; same-sex marriage; stare decisis;
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
A convenient starting point is what the Tribunal decided in Judgment 2590. As the Tribunal noted, the complainant, “whose personal status is governed by Dutch law, validly contracted a same-sex marriage”. The Tribunal then observed:
“According to the Tribunal’s case law, ‘[a]s a general rule, and in the absence of a definition of the term, the status of a spouse will flow from a marriage publicly performed and certified by an official of the State where the ceremony has taken place, such marriage being then proved by the production of an official certificate’ (see Judgment 1715, under 10); thus, ‘a link [is established] between the word “‘spouse’” and the institution of marriage, whatever form it may take’ (see Judgment 2193, under 10). In the present case, the FAO’s Staff Rules and Regulations give no definition of the term spouse, apart from a passing reference to husband and wife in the English version of Staff Regulation 301.3.22, which cannot justify interpreting all the relevant texts as denying legally married, same-sex spouses any right to benefits.”
This reasoning is equally applicable to the present case. The complainant was married to his partner. An interpretation of Staff Regulation 3.12 cannot be justified which denies legally married, same-sex spouses any rights to benefits. Moreover, and this is common ground, by operation of Article 29 of the ITU Constitution, any discrepancy or dispute, relevantly between the English and French versions of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, the French text shall prevail. In the present case and notwithstanding what was decided in Judgment 2643 by reference to the English version of the applicable provisions, the French version should prevail and clearly, as mentioned earlier, it was gender neutral in relation to who is a spouse or “conjoint”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1715, 2193, 2590, 2643
Keywords:
interpretation of rules; same-sex marriage; stare decisis;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; dependant; interpretation of rules; same-sex marriage;
Judgment 4920
139th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of his internal appeal seeking compensation for Interpol’s alleged failure to inform him of the status of his same-sex marriage in prospective duty stations and to assist him in obtaining recognition of his husband as a dependent spouse in duty stations where national law did not recognise same-sex marriage.
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
Having regard to the legal elements of the cause of action based on negligence [...], one question which presently arises is whether Interpol failed to take reasonable steps to avoid injury to the complainant at the time he was offered and accepted the appointment in February 2017. Injury can presently be assumed. Interpol did not fail to do so. The complainant was prepared to, and did, accept the appointment and take up the position in Bangkok in April 2017 with the position of his husband unresolved, indeed unclear. That is not a matter for which Interpol should be held legally accountable, and the steps it took were reasonable. Accordingly, Interpol was not negligent offering the complainant the position and acting on his acceptance.
However, Interpol did fail to continue to investigate the position of the complainant’s husband and should have. But the complainant then confronts the difficulty of causation. That is to say, he must demonstrate that any financial or other loss, including moral damage, he suffered as a result of this failure (assuming it be negligence) was caused by Interpol. The short answer is that it was not. Any loss the complainant suffered, including loss of consortium, which would be a moral injury of sorts, flowed from his decision to accept the position without knowing his husband’s rights of entry and residence.
As noted earlier, the alleged negligence of Interpol may also comprehend, though this is not clear, its failure to facilitate the subsequent entry into Thailand of the complainant’s husband on terms acceptable to the complainant. How this could have been achieved by Interpol is far from obvious having regard to Thai law at the relevant time and Interpol’s obligations, including of its officials, under the Agreement between Interpol and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand regarding the Privileges and Immunities of the Interpol Office for South-East Asia in Bangkok (Headquarters Agreement with Thailand). This relevantly provides that “the laws and regulations of the Kingdom of Thailand [...] shall apply within the Office and to its activities” (Article 2), that Interpol international officials appointed by the Secretary General to carry out the functions of the Office “shall be permitted together with members of their families, in accordance with the laws and regulations of Thailand, to enter and stay in Thailand during the term of their assignment” (Article 11(5)), that the privileges and immunities provided for in the Headquarters Agreement with Thailand “are granted to those concerned [Interpol international officials serving in Thailand] not for their personal benefit but in the interest of the smooth functioning of the Organization” (Article 13(1)), and that “[n]othing in the [Headquarters Agreement with Thailand] shall affect the right of the Government [of Thailand] to take measures it considers necessary to safeguard national security or maintain law and order” (Article 13(3)). Importantly, the complainant does not establish what could have been, but was not, done to this end.
Keywords:
headquarters agreement; host state; negligence; same-sex marriage;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; order to modify internal rules; same-sex marriage;
Judgment 3204
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims moral damages for the Union’s failure to submit to its Council the matter of the recognition of same-sex marriages.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; promise; same-sex marriage;
Judgment 3203
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint is directed at the Secretary-General’s decision to refuse to recognise same-sex marriages.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; same-sex marriage;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is true that the case law of the Tribunal on the question of benefits for same-sex partners has developed in the last decade. This is illustrated by Judgment 2860. Indeed, there are opinions of individual judges concluding that staff rules denying access to dependency benefits to same-sex partners are unenforceable because they violate fundamental principles of law (see, for example, the dissenting opinion of Justice Hugessen in Judgment 2193)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2193, 2860
Keywords:
case law; definition; dependant; difference; enforcement; family allowance; interpretation; marital status; provision; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3080
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[T]he case law of the Tribunal establishes that when the term "spouse" is used in an organisation's staff rules or regulations without being otherwise defined therein, it is not limited to individuals within a marriage but may also cover persons in other forms of union (see in particular Judgments 2760, under 4, and 2860, under 9). Thus, in several recent judgments concerning cases where the applicable provisions were couched in similar language, the Tribunal held that the organisations concerned had to recognise same-sex marriages (see Judgment 2590 or Judgment 2760 [...]) or unions in the form of registered partnerships when the relevant national law made it possible to consider persons in such unions as "spouses" (see Judgments 2549 and 2550, and Judgment 2860 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2590, 2760, 2860
Keywords:
applicable law; definition; domestic law; marital status; no provision; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[A] passing reference to "husband" or "wife" in the Staff Rules is not sufficient to warrant interpreting all the relevant provisions thereof as denying same-sex spouses the entitlements concerned (see Judgment 2590 [...], under 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2590
Keywords:
dependant; interpretation; marital status; medical expenses; provision; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; same-sex marriage; same-sex partnership;
Judgment 2860
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9, 13, 17, 19 and 21
Extract:
The complainant, a French national, entered into a "Civil Solidarity Contract" (PACS) under French law with his same-sex partner. The FAO refused to recognise his partner as his dependent spouse for the purpose of dependency benefits.
"The Tribunal rejects the FAO's assertion that under the Staff Regulations and Rules, the status of 'spouse' can only arise in the context of a marriage. It is now well established in the case law that, unless the term 'spouse' is otherwise defined in the staff regulations, it is not limited to individuals within a marriage. It may also arise from other types of unions. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 2760, under 4, in the absence of a definition of 'spouse' in the relevant regulatory provisions, 'same-sex marriages' [...] or unions in the form of 'registered partnerships' [have] to be recognised by these organisations where the applicable national legislation enable[s] persons who ha[ve] contracted such unions to be regarded as 'spouses' (see Judgments 2549 and 2550)'. (See also Judgment 2643, under 6.)"
"Accordingly, as the Tribunal also observed in Judgment 2549, under 11, it is necessary to determine whether in the light of the provisions of French law, the complainant and his partner should be considered as 'spouses' within the meaning of the FAO Staff Regulations and Rules."
"[The materials of the file] demonstrate that just as in a marriage relationship, PACS partners are required to provide each other with financial support and are jointly liable for debts incurred for daily living. In matters such as immigration, social security, health insurance, home leave and relocation of civil servants, special leave for persons bound by a PACS, inheritance fees and income taxes, PACS partners are treated the same as spouses in a marriage. In a significant recent development, reference is made to the existence of the PACS and the name of the partners in the official register of personal status of individuals who have entered into a PACS, just as marital status is recorded for married persons."
"Not only does a PACS change the legal status of the partners in relation to each other, but it also changes the legal status of the partners in relation to the State in a variety of ways enumerated earlier and in ways that mirror the status of married couples in relation to the State. Just as in a marriage, a PACS establishes a legal relationship of mutual dependence. Further, and at the very least, in the absence of a contrary provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules, the principle of non-discrimination requires that for the purposes of dependency benefits the term 'spouse' be interpretated as applicable to a relationship of mutual dependence under the relevant national law."
"In conclusion, having regard to the materials filed in this proceeding, the Tribunal is satisfied that the provisions of French law give rise to a relationship of mutual dependence, and accordingly, the complainant and his partner must be regarded as 'spouses' under the Staff Regulations and Rules. In these circumstances, the Director-General erred in refusing to recognise the status of the complainant and his partner for the purpose of dependency benefits and, therefore, his decision will be set aside."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2643, 2760
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; dependant; domestic law; family allowance; marital status; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2826
107th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"There was nothing to preclude the complainant from raising the argument based on the French text of the Staff Regulations in his first complaint. He was then armed with the recommendation and reasons of the Appeal Board, both of which were based on the English text of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. Further, as he was then seeking recognition of his same-sex partner as a dependent spouse, it was for him to advance argument as to why that course should be taken rather than the more limited course recommended by the Appeal Board. Moreover, the grounds on which the Tribunal may review its judgments are limited to «failure to take account of some essential fact, a material error involving no value judgment, failure to rule on a claim, or the later discovery of some essential fact that the parties were unable to rely on in the original proceedings» (see Judgment 1252 and also Judgments 442, 555 and 649). The argument based on the French text is, in essence, an argument that the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules as barring recognition of the complainant's partner as his dependent spouse. That is not an admissible ground for the review of a judgment (see Judgment 2029). Nor is it a ground for review that, on 3 September 2007 and after Judgment 2643 was delivered, the complainant married his partner in British Columbia in accordance with the law of Canada. It would entirely defeat the principles of finality and res judicata if subsequent facts could be taken into account on an application for review of a judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442, 555, 649, 1252, 2029, 2643
Keywords:
application for review; dependant; finality of judgment; inadmissible grounds for review; language of rule; marital status; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata; same-sex marriage;
Judgment 2760
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, a Canadian national, married a person of the same sex, as she is permitted to do under the law in force in Canada. She immediately informed the Agency of her new marital status and applied for the dependency benefits to which staff members with a spouse are eligible, but her application was rejected. The defendant points out that, for the purpose of applying its Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, it has a definition of the term "spouse" which refers only to the partners of a union between persons of opposite sex, since the Guide to Dependency Benefits, which was drawn up for the staff, indicates that the term "'[s]pouse' for all purposes of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules is defined to mean the husband or wife". "But this mere information document, which was prepared by the Administration and has no normative value, clearly cannot prescribe the adoption of a restrictive definition which does not appear in the applicable texts themselves.
Furthermore, while the Tribunal notes that the same definition was also given in a Notice to the Staff of 11 July 2005, that document likewise could not narrow the scope of the concept of 'spouse' to which the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules refer. Although the secretariat of an organisation may always circulate a Notice to the Staff to clarify certain provisions of its staff regulations and rules, such a notice cannot impose on staff any restrictive conditions other than those stipulated in the provisions themselves."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Guide to Dependency Benefits
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; binding character; condition; definition; dependant; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; information note; limits; marital status; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purpose; refusal; request by a party; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2643
103rd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, a British national, entered into a "Civil Solidarity Contract" (PACS) under French law with his same-sex partner and had his partnership registered under the Civil Partnership Act applicable to British citizens. The ITU refused to recognise his partner as his dependent spouse for determination of the benefits pertaining to that status. "The Tribunal has accepted in several recent judgments that same-sex marriages (see Judgment 2590) and unions taking the form of 'registered partnerships' must be recognised where the national legislation applicable to the staff member concerned allows persons who have contracted such unions to be treated as 'spouses' (see Judgments 2549 and 2550). The important difference between the present case and those previously decided lies in the fact that the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules explicitly define the concept of spouses as denoting husband and wife in a large number of provisions, and that, contrary to the situations examined in Judgments 2549 and 2550, the ITU refuses to accept that same-sex unions lawfully contracted under the national legislation of the official concerned may be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. It follows that the defendant was not wrong in asserting that, in the light of the case law and the applicable Regulations and Rules as they currently stand, the Secretary-General was barred from giving the term 'spouse' the broad interpretation requested."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2549, 2550, 2590
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; definition; dependant; difference; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; marital status; provision; purpose; refusal; same-sex marriage; social benefits; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
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 2193
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant, who had entered into a civil solidarity contract (pacte civil de solidarité, hereinafter 'pacs') with his male partner, informed the administration that his partner was entirely dependant on him. The organisation replied that, under the rules currently applicable within the United Nations system, the pacs was not recognised as a formal marriage that could create an entitlement to any benefits or allowances for a dependent spouse. The Tribunal shares the view that the organization "is not bound by contracts entered into under national laws".
Keywords:
contract; dependant; domestic law; family allowance; marital status; organisation's duties; same-sex marriage; sex discrimination;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant, who had entered into a civil solidarity contract (pacte civil de solidarité, hereinafter 'pacs') with his male partner, informed the administration that his partner was entirely dependant on him. The organisation replied that, under the rules currently applicable within the United Nations system, the pacs was not recognised as a formal marriage that could create an entitlement to any benefits or allowances for a dependent spouse. The Tribunal states that "neither the letter nor the spirit of the relevant texts cited by the parties, nor indeed the case law, enable partners bound by a pacs to be considered as having the status of spouses within the meaning of Staff Rule 103.9."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 103.9
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; contract; dependant; domestic law; family allowance; interpretation; marital status; organisation's duties; same-sex marriage;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant, who had entered into a civil solidarity contract (pacte civil de solidarité, hereinafter 'pacs') with his male partner, informed the administration that his partner was entirely dependent on him. The organisation replied that, under the rules currently applicable within the United Nations system, the pacs was not recognised as a formal marriage that could create an entitlement to any benefits or allowances for a dependent spouse. "The complainant submits that, since the Director-General is entitled to modify or create exceptions to the application of the Staff Rules, he could and ought to have made an exception in the present case or amended the disputed text in order to protect the rights of homosexuals. [...] However, irrespective of the validity of the arguments put forward in urging the Director-General to take individual choices into account in the context of a culture of tolerance compatible with changing moral beliefs, the Director-General cannot be compelled to resort to what is merely an option open to him under certain clearly defined circumstances, since exercising that option is entirely a matter of discretion."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; contract; dependant; discretion; domestic law; equal treatment; exception; executive head; family allowance; marital status; same-sex marriage; sex discrimination; staff regulations and rules;
|
|
|
|
|
