|
|
 |
|
|
Duty to know the rules (852,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Duty to know the rules
Total judgments found: 33
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5096
141st Session, 2026
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a retroactive redefinition of his employment relationship.
Consideration 16
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, officials are expected to know the rules and regulations to which they are subject (see Judgments 4777, consideration 6, and 4673, consideration 16). Ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is no excuse (see Judgments 4741, consideration 13, 4673, consideration 26, and 4573, consideration 4).
As a staff member, the complainant was expected to be aware of the available remedies for challenging the long series of short-term contracts and the relevant time limits. As already noted, other staff in his position duly requested recharacterization of their employment relationship while still on short-term contracts.
His assertion that he was unaware of the possibility of obtaining retroactive recharacterization of his fixed-term contract and material or moral compensation, is also factually incorrect.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4573, 4673, 4741, 4777
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
Judgment 5065
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her request for an expatriation allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; duty to know the rules; expatriation allowance; time limit;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]n ordinary circumstances, a staff member is expected to know the Staff Rules and Regulations and, in particular, the rules concerning the means of redress against an unfavourable decision, whether or not they are written in the said decision. Indeed, consistent case law has it that staff members have a duty to inform themselves, that is, they are expected to know their rights and responsibilities or to ask for clarifications when there is any doubt (see Judgments 4196, consideration 4, 4032, consideration 6, and 3878, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3878, 4032, 4196
Keywords:
duty to know the rules; time limit;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[O]fficials are expected to know their rights and the rules and regulations to which they are subject, including in this case the provisions regarding the expatriation allowance, and ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is no excuse (see Judgments 4741, consideration 13, 4673, consideration 16, 4573, consideration 4, 4166, consideration 4, and the case law quoted therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4166, 4573, 4673, 4741
Keywords:
duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
Judgment 5031
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la réduction du montant de son indemnité forfaitaire de dactylographie calculée proportionnellement à la réduction de son temps de travail.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[L]a requérante se plaint du fait qu’aucune motivation ne lui aurait été communiquée lors de la transmission de son bulletin de rémunération pour le mois d’avril 2019 […]
Le Tribunal considère que, comme le fait valoir à juste titre la défenderesse, une décision de nature automatique, telle que celle de réduire le montant de l’indemnité de dactylographie proportionnellement au temps de travail réellement effectué et reconnu par l’Organisation, n’est autre, ainsi qu’il a déjà été dit, que la conséquence évidente de la mise en œuvre concrète de règles du Statut administratif. Au demeurant, ces règles, rappelées au considérant 3 ci-dessus, sont suffisamment claires. Celles-ci devaient par ailleurs être connues au préalable par l’intéressée (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4696, au considérant 10, 4242, au considérant 6, et 4166, au considérant 4). Il n’y avait donc pas lieu d’exiger de la part d’Eurocontrol une motivation formelle plus étendue que celle qui figurait sur les bulletins de rémunération qui lui avaient été transmis à partir du mois d’avril 2019. […] À supposer même que la requérante ait pu avoir le moindre doute à ce sujet, il lui était donc loisible de prendre connaissance des dispositions pertinentes en la matière et, le cas échéant, de demander, en temps utile, des informations complémentaires à ce sujet (voir, dans le même sens, le jugement 4591, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4166, 4242, 4591, 4696
Keywords:
duty to know the rules; motivation; payslip;
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 complainant’s contention that he requested the authorization after he was notified of the charges, the Tribunal notes that he should have requested the authorization prior to his engagement in the AIP and not only after he was charged for failure to seek prior authorization. In any event, even after he was notified of the charges, the complainant did not request authorization in compliance with the relevant rules, as to the authority to whom to address the request and as to the information to be provided. The Organization had no duty to warn him that he needed the authorization, as he was expected to know the staff regulations and rules and to comply with them (see Judgment 4823, consideration 23, and the case law quoted therein). It was not the Organization’s duty to advise him about his outside activities, but it was his duty to promptly inform the Organization about them.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4823
Keywords:
duty to know the rules;
Judgment 4823
138th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him a contract of indefinite duration.
Consideration 23
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4741, consideration 13, “officials are expected to know their rights and the rules and regulations to which they are subject, and ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is no excuse (see, in this regard, Judgments 4673, consideration 16, 4573, consideration 4, 4324, consideration 11, and 4032, consideration 6)”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4032, 4324, 4573, 4673, 4741
Keywords:
duty to know the rules;
Judgment 4822
138th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 9
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4741, consideration 13, “officials are expected to know their rights and the rules and regulations to which they are subject, and ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is no excuse (see, in this regard, Judgments 4673, consideration 16, 4573, consideration 4, 4324, consideration 11, and 4032, consideration 6)”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4032, 4324, 4573, 4673, 4741
Keywords:
duty to know the rules;
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, officials are expected to know the rules and regulations to which they are subject (see, for example, Judgment 4673, consideration 16, and the case law cited therein). This principle clearly includes any matters particular to their personal situation. It was the complainant’s choice to apply for the post in respect of which he was awarded the promotion in question and it was up to him to assess the advantages and disadvantages thereof beforehand.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4673
Keywords:
candidate; duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules; selection procedure;
Judgment 4775
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to “terminate [her] contract after [her] resignation”.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]s the Tribunal’s case law has long emphasised, “every international civil servant is expected to know the rules and regulations to which [she or] he is subject” (see, for example, Judgments 4324, consideration 11, and 2962, consideration 13). The complainant cannot blame the FAO for her failure to familiarize herself with the Organization’s Administrative Manual.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2962, 4324
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules;
Judgment 4741
137th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s allegation that she was misled as to the potential exercise of her right of appeal [...] is unfounded. [T]he documents in the file show that the complainant was well aware of the relevant provisions of the Staff Rules.
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, officials are expected to know their rights and the rules and regulations to which they are subject, and ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is no excuse (see, in this regard, Judgments 4673, consideration 16, 4573, consideration 4, 4324, consideration 11, and 4032, consideration 6).
Furthermore, it must be noted that the Organisation’s reply [...] came shortly after the complainant’s appeal [...] had been submitted, and that on the date of the reply the complainant was not yet time-barred from bringing the matter before the Tribunal. This may be seen as evidence that the Organisation did not seek to mislead the complainant or lead her into a procedural trap and, on the contrary, duly informed her of her rights at a stage when she could still file a complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4032, 4324, 4573, 4673
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; good faith; ignorance of the rules; right of appeal;
Judgment 4696
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to recover supposed overpayments made to him by way of expatriation allowance.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[S]taff members are expected to know their rights, ignorance of the law is no excuse and a staff member is deemed to know the regulations and rules governing her or his appointment (see Judgments 4242, consideration 6, and 4166, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4166, 4242
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
Judgment 4673
136th Session, 2023
The Pacific Community
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment during her extended probation period.
Consideration 16
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, officials are expected to know the rules and regulations to which they are subject and ignorance of the law is no excuse (see Judgments 4324, consideration 11, and 4032, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4032, 4324
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
Judgment 4573
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject as time-barred his request for review contesting deductions made from his remuneration in February 2013 and November 2014 for, respectively, pension contributions and the dependents and education allowances.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant argues that he could not challenge the […] deductions before becoming aware of Article 88 of the Service Regulations, which, according to him, is relevant to his case. This type of argument has consistently been rejected by the Tribunal: a staff member is presumed to be aware of the organisation’s rules and regulations to which she or he is subject (see, for example, Judgments 4247, consideration 6, and 2962, consideration 13, cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2962, 4247
Keywords:
duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
Judgment 4308
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[C]onsistent case law has it that a staff member is presumed to be aware of the organization’s rules and regulations to which she or he is subject (see, for example, Judgments 4247, consideration 6, and 2962, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2962, 4247
Keywords:
duty to know the rules;
Judgment 4247
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal from service for serious misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Consistant case law has it that a staff member is presumed to be aware of the organization's rules and regulations to which she or he is subject (see, for example, Judgment 2962, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2962
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
Judgment 4242
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to consider her claim for compensation for illness attributable to the performance of official duties.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that staff members are expected to know their rights and that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it has reiterated that a staff member is deemed to know the regulations and rules governing her or his appointment (see, for example, Judgment 4032, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4032
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
Judgment 4196
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject as time-barred his application for an inward transfer into the EPO’s pension scheme of pension rights previously accrued under a German pension scheme.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Consistent case law has it that “[t]he principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform employees in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests” (see Judgment 2768, under 4, and the case law cited therein). It is clear that the Organisation fulfilled that duty in the present case. The Tribunal notes that its case law also holds that staff members have a duty to inform themselves; i.e. they are expected to know their rights and responsibilities or to ask for clarifications when there is any doubt (see, for example, Judgments 3878, under 12 and 17, and 4032, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2768, 3878, 4032
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
Judgment 4166
128th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s decision to recover various sums which it considers were unduly paid to him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, “staff members are expected to know their rights: ignorance of the law is no excuse” (see Judgment 1700, consideration 28). The Tribunal thus held that “a staff member is deemed to know the regulations and rules governing her or his appointment” (see Judgment 3878, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1700, 3878
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
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 3
Extract:
[S]taff members of international organizations have a duty to acquaint themselves with the rules and regulations which apply to them and cannot plead ignorance thereof (see Judgments 3135, consideration 14, and 3726, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3135, 3726
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
Judgment 4032
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to accept for consideration on the merits her compensation claim for service-incurred injury.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The additional reason adduced by the complainant is that she was unaware of her right as a staff member to make such a claim. It is observed that the Tribunal has consistently held that “staff members are expected to know their rights: ignorance of the law is no excuse” (Judgment 1700, under 28) and has reiterated recently in Judgment 3878, under 12, that “a staff member is deemed to know the regulations and rules governing her or his appointment” (citations omitted). It follows that this additional reason is not a valid reason.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1700, 3878
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
Judgment 3878
124th Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to reimburse him for his FAO-derived income taxes, interest charges and penalties paid to the United States tax authorities.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A] staff member is deemed to know the regulations and rules governing her or his appointment (see, for example, Judgments 1700, consideration 28, 2960, consideration 7, 3135, consideration 14, and 3726, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1700, 2960, 3135, 3726
Keywords:
duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
