|
|
 |
|
|
Discrimination (663,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Discrimination
Total judgments found: 26
1, 2 | 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 20
Extract:
Le Tribunal relève à cet égard que l’intéressée ne produit du reste aucun élément de preuve lui permettant de conclure que la modification de la méthode de calcul du remboursement de ses frais de voyage aurait entraîné une discrimination ou une inégalité entre elle et les autres membres du personnel d’Eurocontrol se trouvant dans une situation semblable à la sienne (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4073, au considérant 11, 4067, au considérant 10, et 3868, au considérant 6). Aucun fait précis et prouvé n’établit la réalité de la discrimination alléguée.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3868, 4067, 4073
Keywords:
discrimination; evidence;
Judgment 5168
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 stop reimbursing his travel expenses.
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
[T]he complainant essentially contends that, having waived the requirement that he be a national of a Member State at the time of his recruitment, the Organisation created a legitimate expectation that he would not, in the course of his career, be penalised by the application of criteria based on the fact that he was not a national of a Member State.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal agrees with this contention.
[…]
The Tribunal considers that, in these circumstances, Eurocontrol could not deny the complainant’s reimbursement of his travel expenses, on the sole basis of the Member State nationality criterion introduced by article 4 of Office Notice No. 18/20, without violating his aforementioned legitimate expectation.
Keywords:
discrimination; legitimate expectation;
Judgment 5111
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his appointment.
Consideration 14
Extract:
“[A]llegations of discrimination and unequal treatment can lead to redress on condition that they are based on precise and proven facts, establishing that discrimination has occurred in the subject case. Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proven that staff members in identical situations were treated differently […].”
Keywords:
discrimination; unequal treatment;
Judgment 5078
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges general decisions CA/D 22/09 and CA/D 2/14, as well as the individual decisions rejecting his respective requests to participate in the 2013 and 2014 Staff Committee elections.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal finds no violation of the principle of equal treatment or discrimination in the present case. According to the Tribunal’s well-settled case law, the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgment 4277, consideration 21, and the case law cited therein). Also, in most cases involving allegations of unequal treatment, the critical question is whether there is a relevant difference warranting the different treatment involved, and even where there is a relevant difference, different treatment may breach the principle of equality if the different treatment is not appropriate and adapted to that difference (see, for example, Judgments 4391, consideration 11, and 4022, consideration 6). Notably, in Judgment 4487, consideration 9, the Tribunal concluded that the status of employees in active employment is materially different from that of employees assigned to non-active status and therefore warrants distinct legal treatment without this infringing the principles of equality of treatment and non-discrimination. As the Tribunal stated, “[t]he two situations differ in fact and cannot be compared”. This conclusion also applies to the present case justifying the recognition of different electoral rights for employees in active employment as opposed to those assigned to non-active status.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4022, 4277, 4391, 4487
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; freedom of association;
Judgment 4867
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the determination of her leave status during her absence from work as well as the decision, taken as a result of her internal appeal, not to award her moral damages and to grant her up to 2,500 Swiss francs in legal costs.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A]llegations of discrimination and unequal treatment can lead to redress on condition that they are based on precise and proven facts, that establish that discrimination has occurred in the subject case. Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proven that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgments 4498, consideration 27, 4238, consideration 5, and 4101, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4101, 4238, 4498
Keywords:
discrimination; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4855
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.
Consideration 18
Extract:
Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Mr P. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; burden of proof; competition; discrimination; prejudice; recommendation; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 4854
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Director, Office of Strategy, Planning and Resources Management, following a competitive selection process.
Consideration 18
Extract:
Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Ms C. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; competition; discrimination; prejudice; recommendation; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 4752
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a special post allowance.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Since the situation of the complainant differs from the one of the incumbent of [the] position [in question], her contention that the principle of equal treatment was breached is unsubstantiated, as well as her contention that she was discriminated against.
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment;
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 4532
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to separate her from service on 22 November 2018, after having reached the end of the extension period previously granted beyond the mandatory age of retirement of 62 according to the Staff Rules then in force.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; discrimination; retirement age; un common system;
Judgment 4527
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants impugn WHO’s decision to postpone implementation of the mandatory age of separation adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 70/244 of 23 December 2015.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has recognised in Judgment 3071, considerations 12 and 13 (citing Judgment 2915), that differing ages of retirement referable to different pension entitlements are not inherently discriminatory.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2915, 3071
Keywords:
discrimination; retirement age;
Judgment 4498
134th Session, 2022
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his claim concerning a surviving spouse’s pension.
Consideration 27
Extract:
Disparity of treatment is unlawful only where equal situations in fact and in law are treated in a different way. The principle of equality requires that persons in the same position in fact and in law must be treated equally (see Judgment 4423, consideration 15). The Tribunal’s case law states that allegations of discrimination and unequal treatment can lead to redress on condition that they are based on precise and proven facts, that establish that discrimination has occurred in the subject case (see Judgment 4238, consideration 5). Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proven that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgment 4101, consideration 9).
The situation of the beneficiaries of the Fund who get married, or remarried, after retirement, is not equivalent to the situation of beneficiaries who get married before retirement. Similarly, the situation of a person who marries a retired beneficiary of the Fund is not equivalent to the situation of a person who married a member of the Fund before their retirement.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4101, 4238, 4423
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; pension;
Judgment 4408
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 21
Extract:
In Judgment 107, the Tribunal held that for the right to take part in competitions to be effective, “it must necessarily include the right to demand that the arrangements for the competition ensure the appointment of the candidate who is really the best qualified. In other words, at every stage of the competition including the arrangements made, the conduct of the tests and the evaluation of their results, every candidate must be treated on an equal footing and with full impartiality” (see also Judgment 1071, consideration 3). In this case, it has not been established that the complainant was not treated on the same terms as the other candidates and she offers no proof that the successful candidate received preferential treatment. Asserting that the successful candidate had a good relationship with the chief of the department concerned, and that it was that chief who set the tests and evaluated the papers, is not sufficient to show that there was a breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 107, 1071
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; selection procedure;
Judgment 4370
131st Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to retire him at the end of the month in which he reached the age of 62, even though he had not completed the five years of contributions required for the payment of a retirement pension by the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]nsofar as the impugned decision merely applies the normal rule of mandatory retirement for staff members who have reached the age limit, it cannot be considered that such a decision involves a misuse of authority or that it constitutes a measure which discriminates against the complainant.
Keywords:
abuse of power; discrimination; misuse of authority; retirement age;
Judgment 4316
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the introduction of fixed “bridging days” to balance the number of public holidays at the different places of employment.
Consideration 15
Extract:
Regarding the alleged indirect discrimination against women, who are more likely to work part-time than men, the IAC minority took into consideration the judgment rendered by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 6 December 2007 in case C-300/06, to contend that the change introduced by Circular No. 309 had resulted in indirect discrimination. Regardless of other considerations, the case examined by the ECJ is different from the present case. According to ECJ case law, the principle of equal pay also excludes the application of provisions which maintain different treatment between men and women at work as a result of criteria not based on sex where those differences of treatment are not attributable to objective factors wholly unrelated to sex discrimination. In this case, the alleged indirect discrimination against women is not established, as the difference of treatment had been determined by objective factors, involving financial gains and administrative benefits, wholly unrelated to any kind of discrimination.
Keywords:
discrimination; discrimination against women; equal pay for equal work; european court of justice (ecj); part-time employment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; discrimination; public holiday;
Judgment 4250
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him the requested paid parental leave upon the birth of his child by surrogacy.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that the complainant is basically advocating for a change in the rules and does not make any specific claim in that respect. Accordingly these statements, which are of a general nature serve unclear purposes, and the Tribunal cannot address them.
Keywords:
change of rules; competence of tribunal; discrimination;
Judgment 4238
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law states that allegations of discrimination and unequal treatment can lead to redress on condition that they are based on precise and proven facts which establish that discrimination has occurred in the subject case (see Judgment 4067, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4067
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment;
Judgment 4195
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to modify the conditions governing sickness insurance for employees’ spouses.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainants contend that the breach of their acquired rights also amounts to discrimination, but the Tribunal finds, as it did in a similar case, that the Organisation “has not discriminated against them: far from it. Its purpose was to remove an unfair advantage the Rules used to confer on them. Such corrective action may not be treated as breach of acquired rights even if the advantage was enjoyed for a long time” (see Judgment 1241, under 24).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1241
Keywords:
acquired right; discrimination;
Judgment 4101
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to grant special leave must be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to assume that, because special leave has been granted to one staff member, it must be granted to another, unless the two cases are identical in fact and in law. Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proved that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgment 2619, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2619
Keywords:
discretion; discrimination; equal treatment; special leave;
Judgment 4073
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the reduction of the rate of the expatriate premium paid to her.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[The complainant has not] provided evidence which proves that the reduction in the expatriate premiums she received from 1 January 2015 onwards created discrimination or inequality between herself and other Global Fund staff, as she contends, in circumstances in which she was in a like situation to other staff members but was treated differently (see Judgment 3298, under 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3298
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; unequal treatment;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
