|
|
 |
|
|
Unequal treatment (845,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Unequal treatment
Total judgments found: 24
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5165
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to withdraw her “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[F]orce est de constater que la requérante n’est pas traitée de manière moins favorable par rapport aux autres fonctionnaires qui ne bénéficient pas du remboursement des frais de voyage à raison du fait qu’ils n’ont pas droit à une indemnité d’expatriation ou de dépaysement. Cette norme est la même pour tous les fonctionnaires d’Eurocontrol, peu importe la nationalité ou la distance vers leur lieu d’origine, et la requérante est dans la même situation que tout fonctionnaire non expatrié. L’intéressée ne produit du reste aucun élément de preuve permettant de conclure que la suppression 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:
unequal treatment;
Judgment 5164
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to withdraw his “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[F]orce est de constater que le requérant n’est pas traité de manière moins favorable par rapport aux autres fonctionnaires qui ne bénéficient pas du remboursement des frais de voyage à raison du fait qu’ils n’ont pas droit à une indemnité d’expatriation ou de dépaysement. Cette norme est la même pour tous les fonctionnaires d’Eurocontrol, peu importe la nationalité ou la distance vers leur lieu d’origine, et le requérant est dans la même situation que tout fonctionnaire non expatrié. L’intéressé ne produit du reste aucun élément de preuve permettant de conclure que la suppression du remboursement de ses frais de voyage aurait entraîné une discrimination ou une inégalité entre lui 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:
unequal treatment;
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 5071
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of the salary advancement he received under transitional provisions applicable to chairmen and members of the Boards of Appeal following the introduction of a new career system.
Consideration 16
Extract:
When a distinct set of legal rules is created, linked to a certain grade level, it will inevitably affect the employees concerned differently, depending on their individual circumstances, and that is not, in itself, unlawful. Nonetheless, there would be reason to censure the criterion used for this purpose if it stemmed from a manifest error and thus amounted to an abuse of the power of discretion that organisations have in this matter.
Keywords:
grade; unequal treatment;
Judgment 5003
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with notice.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that bias and prejudice must be proven and the complainant bears the burden of proof. In order to support his allegation, the complainant must demonstrate that there was malice, ill-will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4505, consideration 9, and 3902, consideration 11). Similarly, the complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing any bias or inequitable treatment (see Judgment 4097, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3902, 4097, 4505
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4971
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his dismissal from service for misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As to the allegation of unequal treatment, firstly, the Tribunal recalls its case law, stating that the principle of equal treatment cannot ordinarily be invoked to challenge a finding of misconduct. A decision not to initiate proceedings against other staff members has no bearing on the lawfulness of the measure applied to a staff member (see Judgments 4247, consideration 13, and 3575, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). It is also entrenched in case law that unequal treatment presupposes that two persons being in the same situation are treated differently. 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 hand, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see Judgment 4712, consideration 5). This is not the case here, as the complainant and the other member of the AIP who was not dismissed on disciplinary grounds, Mr Sa., were not in the same position. As the complainant himself acknowledges, at the relevant time Mr Sa. was not a staff member, as he held an Individual Contractual Service.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3575, 4247, 4712
Keywords:
misconduct; unequal treatment;
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 4849
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to convert his fixed-term appointment into a continuing or permanent appointment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The second contention is based on a premise that there was a practice that a staff member on a fixed-term contract would, at the end of their fifth year of appointment, be offered the choice of having their contract converted into a continuing appointment at that point, or wait a further two years before having their contract converted into a permanent appointment. The complainant contends his treatment did not accord with this practice and involved unequal treatment. But again, in the main, the complainant supports the existence of this practice, and its breach, by generalised assertions, though he does descend into some specifics. However, the Tribunal’s case law requires that “allegations of discrimination and unequal treatment can lead to redress on condition that they are based on precise and proven facts” (see, for example, Judgment 4238, consideration 5). The concept of “precise and proven facts” entails sufficiently detailed and persuasive evidence to establish that there had been unequal treatment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4238
Keywords:
burden of proof; duration of appointment; evidence; extension of contract; permanent appointment; practice; renewal of contrat; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4596
135th Session, 2023
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to pay him a termination indemnity upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[A]s stated in Judgment 3917, consideration 3, 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, Judgments 3787, consideration 3, 3029, consideration 14, 2313, consideration 5, 2194, consideration 6(a), or 1990, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787, 3917
Keywords:
unequal treatment;
Judgment 4502
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant also contends that there was a breach of the principle of equal pay for equal work in that other staff members performing similar duties to hers held posts at higher grades. On that point, the Tribunal observes that it is not ordinarily its role to compare a post whose classification is contested to the classification of similar posts in the same organisation in order to ascertain whether the classification decision is lawful (see, for example, Judgments 4000, consideration 9, and [...] 4221, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4000, 4221
Keywords:
equal pay for equal work; post classification; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4467
133rd Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the recruitment process and the resulting appointment for the post of Client Relationship Manager, for which he had applied.
Consideration 17
Extract:
Neither has [the complainant] provided evidence of sufficient quality and weight to prove that the decision was based on unequal treatment, bias or favouritism (see, for example, Judgments 3380, consideration 9, and 4408, considerations 21 and 22, and the judgments cited therein) as he contends.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 4408
Keywords:
unequal treatment;
Judgment 4428
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of her request to combine a half day of absence for strike participation with a half day of leave.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages for the unlawfulness of the impugned decision, which amounted to a deliberate violation of the exercise of her right to strike, and the negative effects of this decision, including unequal treatment. The Tribunal assesses these damages in the amount of 5,000 euros.
Keywords:
moral injury; right to strike; strike; unequal treatment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
With regard to the question of unequal treatment, the Tribunal notes that the Organisation has not provided any convincing evidence to justify the different treatment of the complainant’s colleague.
Keywords:
evidence; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4423
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to consider as irreceivable his request to be entitled to 12 additional days of annual leave pursuant to Article 59(1)(b) of the Service Regulations.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
annual leave; complaint allowed; decision quashed; unequal treatment;
Consideration 15
Extract:
[I]t is well established in the case law as reiterated in Judgment 4029, consideration 20, that “the principle of equality requires that persons in the same position in fact and in law must be treated equally”. As the complainant is not in the same position in fact or law as the permanent employees aged 65 and over referred to in Article 59(1)(b), who have attained the normal retirement age, the decision not to grant him the benefit of the 12 days of additional annual leave does not constitute unequal treatment by the EPO.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4029
Keywords:
annual leave; equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4383
131st Session, 2021
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her a performance improvement plan (PIP).
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant provides no evidence that there was any other staff member who was in an identical or similar situation and who was treated dissimilarly (see, for example, Judgment 4157, under 13, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4157
Keywords:
unequal treatment;
Judgment 4382
131st Session, 2021
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decisions to set aside her 2016 performance appraisal only on the basis that it was procedurally flawed, and to insert in her personnel file the impugned decision and the report of the Appeals Commission.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal’s consistent precedent states that 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 4157, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4157
Keywords:
unequal treatment;
Judgment 4277
130th Session, 2020
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.
Consideration 21
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the freezing of the pension point breaches the principle of equality by creating inequality between retired and serving staff members. Reference must be made to the Tribunal’s consistent precedent that 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 Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194, under 6(a), 2313, under 5, or 3029, under 14, 3787, under 3, and 3900, under 12). Retired staff members are not in the same position as serving staff members, and the difference in their treatment relates to this difference in situation. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the principle of equality has not been breached here.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787, 3900
Keywords:
equal treatment; pension; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4157
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the moral injury she suffered because her evaluation for 2013 was irregular and contests the partial modification thereof.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Reference must be made to the Tribunal’s consistent precedent that “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, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194, under 6(a), 2313, under 5, or 3029, under 14)” (see Judgments 3787, under 3, and 3902, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787, 3902
Keywords:
equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4156
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the moral injury she suffered because her evaluation for 2012 was irregular.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Reference must be made to the Tribunal’s consistent precedent that “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 Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194, under 6(a), 2313, under 5, or 3029, under 14)” (see Judgments 3787, under 3, and 3902, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787, 3902
Keywords:
unequal treatment;
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;
Judgment 4067
127th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his contract.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The third argument is that the decision concerning the complainant involved discrimination and unequal treatment. This principle is engaged and can be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and, if need be, give rise to redress on condition that it is based on precise and proven facts which establish the discrimination has occurred (as to its operation in the context of the OPCW, see Judgment 2660, consideration 24, and also, more generally, Judgment 4027, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2660, 4027
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; unequal treatment;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
