|
|
 |
|
|
Host State (673,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Host State
Total judgments found: 23
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5117
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: ITU seeks the Tribunal’s clarification on the issue of material damages payable in accordance with consideration 53 of Judgment 4832.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
“In Judgment 4092, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following:
“As the Tribunal has stated on many occasions in its case law, when a reinstatement order is applied retroactively to the date when the official’s employment was unlawfully terminated, this implies that the official is considered as having remained in service after that date under the same conditions as before and is therefore entitled to the salary and other financial benefits that he would have received if this had actually been the case (see, for example, Judgments 1384, consideration 18(a), 1447, consideration 17, 2261, consideration 16, 2468, consideration 19, and 3723, consideration 8). The reinstatement ‘with all legal consequences that this entails’ referred to in [order] 2 of the decision in Judgment 3871 can therefore only be construed as having such effects.”
[…] In the context of the words used by the Tribunal in […] Judgment 4832, the obligation to restore the status quo ante is limited to the payment of benefits and entitlements that the official receives from ITU and it does not include privileges and immunities bestowed by national authorities under headquarters or host agreements for the benefit of the organization and the independence of its officials.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871, 4092, 4832
Keywords:
application for interpretation; host state; reinstatement;
Judgment 5074
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her diplomatic privileges and immunities following the introduction of a new career system and the transposition of her grade into that system.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant contends that the interpretation of the Seat Agreement agreed upon between the host State and the EPO in 2016 was not a mere interpretation – but rather an amendment – which modified the Seat Agreement in a way detrimental to the EPO’s permanent employees. As such, the interpretation should have been negotiated with the consultation of the General Consultative Committee and the approval by the Administrative Council. This contention is beyond the competence of the Tribunal. The Seat Agreement is an international agreement between two entities under international law and, as such, it does not grant any direct rights and benefits to individuals. Thus, it is not part of the terms of appointment of the EPO staff and it is outside the Tribunal’s competence pursuant to Article II, paragraph 1, of its Statute. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to examine its validity (see Judgment 3105, consideration 5), including the procedure by which it was adopted or amended. It is therefore irrelevant whether the interpretation adopted in 2016 was a mere interpretation or an amendment. What is relevant is that this interpretation was agreed upon between the host State and the EPO, which thereby committed to comply with it. The plea is therefore unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3105
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; host state; international instrument; interpretation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
acquired right; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; host state; international instrument; interpretation; privileges and immunities;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant further contends that the EPO breached its duty of care towards staff by accepting, or proposing, said interpretation. The Tribunal notes that after the new career system entered into force, Article 10 of the Seat Agreement was no longer literally applicable in the terms in which it was expressed, as grades A5 and A4(2) explicitly mentioned therein no longer existed, and Article 10 did not mention the new grades. A renegotiation of the Seat Agreement would have been necessary, which would have taken time, and its outcome would not have been foreseeable. There is evidence in the record that the host State declared how it would have interpreted Article 10, in light of the new career system, and that the EPO informed staff about this interpretation. Even assuming that the interpretation adopted by the host State was the outcome of a negotiation with the EPO, such negotiation between the EPO and the host State can in no way be regarded as an infringement of the EPO’s duty of care towards its staff.
Keywords:
duty of care; host state; international instrument; interpretation;
Judgment 5073
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decisions not to grant them diplomatic privileges and immunities following the introduction of a new career system and the transposition of their grades into that system.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
acquired right; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; host state; international instrument; interpretation; privileges and immunities;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainants contend that the interpretation of the Seat Agreement agreed upon between the host State and the EPO in 2016 was not a mere interpretation – but rather an amendment – which modified the Seat Agreement in a way detrimental to the EPO’s permanent employees. As such, the interpretation should have been negotiated with the consultation of the General Consultative Committee and the approval by the Administrative Council. This contention is beyond the competence of the Tribunal. The Seat Agreement is an international agreement between two entities under international law and, as such, it does not grant any direct rights and benefits to individuals. Thus, it is not part of the terms of appointment of the EPO staff and it is outside the Tribunal’s competence pursuant to Article II, paragraph 1, of its Statute. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to examine its validity (see Judgment 3105, consideration 5), including the procedure by which it was adopted or amended. It is therefore irrelevant whether the interpretation adopted in 2016 was a mere interpretation or an amendment. What is relevant is that this interpretation was agreed upon between the host State and the EPO, which thereby committed to comply with it. The plea is therefore unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3105
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; host state; international instrument; interpretation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainants further contend that the EPO breached its duty of care towards staff by accepting, or proposing, the said interpretation. The Tribunal notes that after the new career system entered into force, Article 10 of the Seat Agreement was no longer literally applicable in the terms in which it was expressed, as grades A5 and A4(2) explicitly mentioned therein no longer existed, and Article 10 did not mention the new grades. A renegotiation of the Seat Agreement would have been necessary, which would have taken time, and its outcome would not have been foreseeable. There is evidence in the record that the host State declared how it would have interpreted Article 10, in light of the new career system, and that the EPO informed staff about this interpretation. Even assuming that the interpretation adopted by the host State was the outcome of a negotiation with the EPO, such negotiation between the EPO and the host State can in no way be regarded as an infringement of the EPO’s duty of care towards its staff.
Keywords:
duty of care; host state; international instrument; interpretation;
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;
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 4727
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asserts that the EPO failed to assist him in his attempts to obtain corrected identity cards for his children.
Considerations 6 & 10
Extract:
As regards the particular legal context of the present dispute, it must be noted that the issuing of identity documents or visas to persons enjoying the privileges and immunities conferred by the seat agreement of an international organisation is the prerogative of the host State. The only duty on the organisation in question in that regard is to provide its officials with the necessary assistance to ensure that the rights inherent in their status as members of staff of that organisation are complied with by that State. Furthermore, the organisation is free to choose how it approaches the authorities in order to discharge that duty. As a result, the organisation can only be liable for delays in a suitable visa or identity document being issued if it has acted in bad faith, behaved inappropriately in its relations with the host State or been negligent in monitoring the progress of the case (see, in particular, on these various points, Judgment 3510, delivered in connection with a previous complaint lodged by the complainant concerning the initial refusal of the Dutch authorities to grant an entry visa to his daughter S., considerations 9, 12 to 14, 17 and 18, and the case law cited therein).
[...]
Admittedly, as has already been stated, issuing identity cards is a matter for the authorities of the host State and it is clearly beyond the competence of the Tribunal to examine the conditions in which the authorities assume that responsibility.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3510
Keywords:
duty of care; host state; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4669
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainant’s claim for interest for late payment on the sums that were repaid to her. Although in his letter of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decision had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions, and the corresponding interest, conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and implied that interest for late payment could be considered only if URSSAF or the French authorities paid such interest. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainant for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
Judgment 4668
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainant’s claim for repayment of the wrongly deducted amounts of ESC and the corresponding interest. Although in his letter of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decisions had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and clearly implied that a refund would only be possible if URSSAF repaid the sums in question. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainant for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
Judgment 4667
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants seek the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from their salaries in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Contrary to what the Organization contends, the Secretary General did in fact take a decision on the complainants’ claims for repayment of the wrongly deducted amounts of ESC and the corresponding interest. Although in his letters of 8 July 2020 the Secretary General insisted that no individual decisions had yet been taken regarding the reimbursement of the ESC wrongly received by URSSAF for periods prior to 2016, he essentially made any future reimbursement of these contributions conditional on the successful conclusion of discussions with France and clearly implied that a refund would only be possible if URSSAF repaid the sums in question. He therefore took a decision adversely affecting the complainants for the purposes of the Tribunal’s case law.
Keywords:
decision; host state; injury; refund;
Judgment 4603
135th Session, 2023
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment on account of his unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
To the extent that the complainant raises questions concerning human rights violations allegedly committed by the Austrian authorities and matters relating to his family circumstances, those questions relate to private rather than work-related matters and are not concerned with the non-observance of the complainant’s terms of appointment. Pursuant to paragraph 5 of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, they are not within the competence of the Tribunal.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; host state; private life; ratione materiae;
Judgment 4458
133rd Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the setting aside of the information circular which, according to her, announced the closure of the UNESCO Commissary.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]t should be noted that, although the opportunity to purchase consumer goods free of duty or tax was plainly financially advantageous to the officials who joined the Commissary, it cannot be regarded as part of their remuneration. As the Tribunal has already held, the benefits of access to a commissary cannot be so classified, since they result from a tax privilege granted directly to the officials concerned by the host country and not from an expense borne by the organisation concerned (see Judgments 1000, consideration 16, and 1001, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1001
Keywords:
facilities; host state; salary;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; contract; host state; non official; offer withdrawn; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
