Quevedo & Ponce - Noticias Legales
No severance compensation for public servants in cases of voluntary retirement to benefit from retirement: New binding jurisprudential precedent for Ecuador
- February 6th, 2025
- Quevedo & Ponce
The Resolution No. 03-2025 of the National Court of Justice of Ecuador, issued on January 29, 2025, establishes the impropriety of severance compensation in cases of voluntary retirement for the public sector.
According to the ruling, “a worker who has decided to terminate their employment relationship through voluntary retirement to benefit from retirement cannot receive the severance compensation provided for in the second paragraph of Article 184 of the Labor Code,” arguing that they would be benefiting twice from the termination of the employment relationship.
What is severance?
This legal concept arises when the worker notifies the employer in writing of their intention to terminate the employment relationship. The law also considers severance when both the worker and the employer mutually agree to the termination in writing.
How is severance compensation calculated?
When a worker terminates their employment through severance, the employer must pay them a bonus equal to 25% of their last monthly salary for each year worked. The employer has 15 days to pay this bonus and other rights owed to the worker.
At Quevedo & Ponce, we advise public servants to ensure compliance with legal provisions and protect their labor rights. Contact us for guidance on this important precedent and its impact on the labor field.
Más Artículos
¡Evita multas de 2 a 20 salarios básicos! – Plan de igualdad laboral para compañías
El Plan de Igualdad, debe registrarse antes del 31 de julio de 2025 ante el Ministerio del Trabajo, o se impondrán multas de 2 a 20 salarios básicos a las compañías e instituciones públicas que no cumplan con la ley. Este Plan garantiza el mismo trato y oportunidades entre mujeres y hombres en el ámbito laboral, promoviendo la inclusión y buscando eliminar la discriminación.
“Bimbo” Brand Rejected in Switzerland: The Importance of Cultural Perceptions in Trademark Registration
In the world of intellectual property, trademark protection involves not only legal aspects but also the social impact of the terms used. A recent case in Switzerland highlights how a trademark can be rejected if its name has immoral or insensitive connotations towards specific social groups.
Marca “BIMBO” Rechazada en Suiza: La Importancia de las Percepciones Culturales en el Registro de Marcas
El impacto social de los términos en las marcas va más allá de lo legal. Un ejemplo reciente es el rechazo de la marca “BIMBO QSR” en Suiza, donde “Bimbo” se considera ofensivo en alemán. Este caso subraya la necesidad de evaluar las sensibilidades culturales al registrar una marca, especialmente para empresas con proyección internacional.
Administrative Tribunal of Quito Protects the Rights of a Designation Of Origin Registered in the European Union and WIPO
Quevedo & Ponce successfully acted on behalf of the Consorzio Produttori e Tutela della DOP FONTINA in response to a lawsuit filed by an Ecuadorian company, which primarily argued that FONTINA was not registered in Ecuador. However, the Administrative Litigation Tribunal located in the Metropolitan District of Quito upheld the challenged administrative act, citing the risk of consumer confusion and applying Decision 486 of the Andean Community, emphasizing the importance of protecting designations of origin, even without formal registration in Ecuador.
Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Quito Protege los Derechos de una Denominación de Origen registrada en la Unión Europea y la OMPI
Quevedo & Ponce actuó exitosamente en representación del Consorzio Produttori e Tutela della DOP FONTINA, ante una demanda presentada por una compañía ecuatoriana, en que se alegó principalmente que FONTINA no estaba registrada en Ecuador. Sin embargo, el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo con Sede en el Distrito Metropolitano de Quito, ratificó el acto administrativo impugnado, citando el riesgo de confusión para el consumidor y aplicando la Decisión 486 de la Comunidad Andina, destacando la importancia de proteger las denominaciones de origen, incluso sin un registro formal en Ecuador.
