Good faith (193,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Good faith
Total judgments found: 208
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 5188
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a Board of Appeal member, challenges his transposition to a new grade, with effect from 1 January 2017, as a result of the introduction of a new career regime.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Contrairement à ce que soutient l’intéressé, rien n’indique que l’argumentation qu’il avait présentée à l’appui de cette demande n’ait pas été prise en considération dans son ensemble et ni le fait que la décision en question ait traité de façon globale des demandes de plusieurs fonctionnaires, ni la circonstance qu’il y ait été répondu, en conséquence, à un grief qu’il n’avait pas lui-même soulevé, ne sauraient caractériser une violation du principe de bonne foi de nature à entacher cette décision d’irrégularité."
Keywords:
good faith; internal appeals body; motivation;
Judgment 5179
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request to access his complete medical file and contests the validity of the internal appeals proceedings.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, bad faith cannot be presumed and must be proven by the evidence (see Judgments 4897, consideration 10, 4675, consideration 6, 4333, consideration 15, 4161, consideration 9, and 3902, consideration 11). Not only is there no evidence on record that the Office withheld relevant information from the complainant, but the Office also expressly invited him, in its reply and surrejoinder, to “visit [...] the Defendant’s premises to personally check his medical file and reassure himself in that respect”. This demonstrates the Office’s good faith and compliance with its duty of care."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3902, 4161, 4333, 4675, 4897
Keywords:
bad faith; good faith; medical records;
Judgment 5155
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to select her for the position of Head of the WHO Office in Dakar, Senegal.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[A]nyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be. The case law also states that an organisation must abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith. As the selection of candidates is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process, a complainant must demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate. However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post, the process must comply with the relevant rules and the Tribunal’s case law. The purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. So precedent demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand (see also Judgments 4589, consideration 4, 4467, consideration 2 […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4467, 4589
Keywords:
competition; good faith; open competition; patere legem; selection procedure;
Judgment 5112
141st Session, 2026
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Also, in Judgment 3829, consideration 7, the Tribunal relevantly said:
“[T]ime limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not rule on the lawfulness of a decision which has become final, because any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. In particular, the fact that a complainant may not have discovered the irregularity on which she or he purports to rely until after the expiry of the time limit is not in principle a reason to deem her or his complaint receivable (see, for example, Judgment 3663, under 7, and the case law cited therein).
It is true that the Tribunal’s case law, as set forth in Judgments 1466, 2722 and 3406 for example, allows exceptions to this rule where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time, or where the organisation, by deliberately misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from her or him, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising her or his right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1466, 2722, 3406, 3663, 3829
Keywords:
exception; failure to exhaust internal remedies; good faith; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 5097
141st Session, 2026
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of a letter of warning.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, when addressing a claim, an administrative authority must generally base itself on the provisions in force at the time it takes its decision, and not on those in force at the time the claim was submitted. Only where this approach is clearly excluded by the new provisions, or where it would result in a breach of the requirements of good faith, non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and protection of acquired rights, the above rule will not apply […].
In the present case, in its recommendations, the [internal appeals body] stated that the complainant’s misconduct had to be assessed under the rules in force at the time it occurred […].
[….] The Tribunal concurs with this reasoning insofar as it concerns the assessment of misconduct, the disciplinary measure, and its further consequence, i.e. the recording of the disciplinary decision in the personal file. Indeed, a general principle concerning disciplinary measures is that the applicable rules are those in force at the time the misconduct occurred, unless new rules are more favourable to the perpetrator, in which case the new rules apply.
However, regarding the statutory rules concerning the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and internal appeals, the Tribunal maintains, in light of its case law, that the applicable rules were those in force when the proceedings were carried out and the related decisions were issued."
Keywords:
acquired right; applicable law; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity;
Judgment 5019
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de supprimer son poste.
Consideration 6
Extract:
S’agissant […] du droit de la requérante à être informée du fait qu’Interpol envisageait de supprimer purement et simplement son poste, le Tribunal rappelle qu’il résulte du principe général de bonne foi et du devoir de sollicitude qui y est lié que les organisations internationales doivent avoir pour leurs fonctionnaires les égards nécessaires afin que leur soient évités des dommages inutiles et qu’il appartient ainsi à ces dernières d’informer à temps leurs fonctionnaires de toute mesure susceptible de porter atteinte à leurs droits ou de léser leurs intérêts légitimes (voir les jugements 4777, au considérant 6, 4072, au considérant 8, 3861, au considérant 9, et 3071, au considérant 30).
Or le Tribunal constate que, si la requérante était au courant de la nécessité de prendre des mesures de restructuration en vue de la création de la nouvelle Direction des ressources humaines, elle n’avait en revanche été informée à aucun moment de la mesure projetée à son égard avant de recevoir la notification de la décision de suppression de son poste […]. Bien au contraire, l’Organisation avait, jusqu’à cette date, pris le soin de la rassurer à cet égard, en insistant sur le fait que son poste n’avait pas été supprimé et que le processus d’analyse et d’examen de la situation de ce poste, afin de notamment redéfinir ses fonctions au sein d’Interpol, se ferait en étroite collaboration avec elle.
Le Tribunal constate que, manifestement, cela n’a pas été le cas. Ainsi que le soutient à juste titre la requérante, elle n’a jamais été avisée des conséquences potentielles de la réorganisation de la Direction des ressources humaines sur sa situation, ni du risque de suppression de son poste qui pouvait en découler. De la même manière, elle n’a pas été prévenue du risque que la création du poste de directeur de la nouvelle direction faisait peser sur l’existence de son propre poste et n’a jamais été informée du projet de l’Organisation de supprimer son poste avant que celui-ci ne se matérialise […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071, 3861, 4072, 4777
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith;
Judgment 4897
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2018.
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
[U]nder the Tribunal’s case law, the regulatory framework of an appraisal procedure, or in any event the substantive elements thereof, may not be amended by a provision adopted after the beginning of the reporting period concerned (see in particular Judgment 4257, consideration 10, explaining the content of Judgment 3185, consideration 7). That approach, which of course applies first and foremost to the setting of the criteria on the basis of which the assessment is performed, is justified by the need to observe both the principle of the non-retroactivity of administrative acts and the requirements of good faith, transparency and fairness that are incumbent in the matter of staff appraisals. [...]
[T]he Tribunal considers that these additional rules cannot be regarded as having substantially altered the assessment procedure set out in the Guidelines, especially since prior knowledge of these rules would not in any event have influenced the professional conduct of the staff members concerned during the reporting period.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3185, 4257
Keywords:
good faith; non-retroactivity; performance report; rating;
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:
[A]ccording to well-established case law of the Tribunal, the general principle of good faith and the duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury and that an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that might imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 4072, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). However, the Tribunal considers that this obligation to act in good faith and this duty of care do not – despite what the complainant submits to the contrary, without identifying anything in the Tribunal’s case law to substantiate his argument – extend to a requirement for the organisation to take the initiative to calculate the loss or gain in salary which might result from a promotion from a grade G post to a grade P post for any staff member interested in applying for such a promotion.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4072
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; salary;
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 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 26
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s claim for the award of 50,000 euros in moral damages, it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law, firstly, that international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members and that the general principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require them to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury (see, for example, Judgment 4559, consideration 10). Secondly, settled case law also holds that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and in a manner consistent with the duty of care an international organisation owes to its staff members (see Judgment 4178, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4178, 4559
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4678
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to extend his fixed-term contract due to unsatisfactory performance and to withhold his within-grade salary increment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Contrary to the complainant’s argument, good faith does not require an organization to extend the appointment of an underperforming staff member merely because the staff member has applied for a disability benefit.
Keywords:
extension of contract; good faith; invalidity;
Judgment 4580
135th Session, 2023
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.
Consideration 22
Extract:
[I]n their rejoinder the complainants submit that the BIPM breached its duty to act in good faith towards them as it did not inform them at the time of their recruitment or during their employment that their contributions to the pension scheme were liable to increase significantly over time. However, the complainants could not be unaware of the risk that contributions would increase in line with financial necessity, which characterises all social insurance schemes to a greater or lesser extent.
Keywords:
duty to inform; good faith;
Judgment 4559
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the refusal to grant him retroactively two days of annual leave as compensation for two days worked during that leave.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]t is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members (see, for example, Judgment 3613, consideration 46) and that the general principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require them to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury (see, for example, Judgment 3861, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3613, 3861
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; organisation's duties; professional reputation; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4469
133rd Session, 2022
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 were allegedly unduly paid to him.
Consideration 5
Extract:
A finding that the complainant did in fact notice the error in calculating his salary would also automatically cast doubt on his good faith, since he would then of course have been required to report that error to the Eurocontrol Administration. However, the Tribunal considers that his good faith is borne out by the fact that the Organisation detected the error committed in 2015 owing to a request for information from the complainant, who [...] expressed surprise to the Administration that he had not been awarded a salary increase when he advanced to the second step of his grade. It is difficult to see why the complainant felt it necessary to raise this matter if he was aware that he had, in fact, already been receiving the remuneration corresponding to the step in question since 2015.
Keywords:
good faith; recovery of overpayment;
Judgment 4412
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated, for example in Judgment 3652, consideration 7, that anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3652
Keywords:
good faith; selection procedure;
Judgment 4298
130th Session, 2020
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim for compensation for a service-incurred disability.
Consideration 7
Extract:
If, in truth, the OPCW had been uncertain about what the Tribunal’s orders in Judgment 3854 meant or had considered they deviated from the issue requiring determination, it could have sought the Tribunal’s assistance (see, for example, Judgment 3003, consideration 31). It did not do so. The OPCW, in advancing this submission, breached its duty to execute the Tribunal’s judgment in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3823, consideration 4). The complainant is entitled to compensation for this breach (see Judgment 2684, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3823, 3854
Keywords:
execution of judgment; good faith;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[A]n organisation is entitled to adopt a position in relation to any claim of a staff member or former staff member for a benefit. If the organisation believes on reasonable grounds, that the benefit is unavailable, it is open to the organisation to resist the claim. But that is not a license to take all or any unreasonable point in doing so.
Keywords:
good faith;
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 20
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3538 (under 15), the power clearly vested in the competent authority to alter the pension scheme can be exercised lawfully if it represents a bona fide attempt to secure the pension scheme into the future and is based on what appears to be properly reasoned actuarial advice.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3538
Keywords:
actuary; good faith; pension; sustainability;
Judgment 4253
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the principle of good faith implies that a promise must be fulfilled, subject to the condition that the promise should “be substantive, i.e. to act, or not to act, or to allow, that it should come from someone who is competent or deemed competent to make it; that breach should cause injury to him or her who relies on it; and that the position in law should not have altered between the date of the promise and the date on which fulfilment is due” (see, for example, Judgments 782, consideration 1, 3005, consideration 12, 3115, consideration 5, 3148, consideration 7, and 3619, considerations 14 and 15). The ILO submits that the complainant does not “appear” to have suffered any real injury, since he waited for almost ten years to raise the issue. This objection cannot be upheld, as the existence of injury does not depend upon the time at which it is alleged. The promise to assign the complainant coordination duties satisfies the criteria established by the case law and should therefore have been fulfilled. The complainant rightly considers that the Organization violated the principle of good faith.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 782, 3005, 3115, 3148, 3619
Keywords:
good faith; promise;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant takes issue with the Organization for having disclosed to certain representatives of Persian Gulf countries confidential emails that he had sent in 2009 to his superiors condemning current practices in those countries, which, he alleges, made him lose all credibility in the region and had adverse consequences for his reputation and professional opportunities after his retirement. The JAAB agreed that “such disclosure is neither appropriate nor acceptable, as it was probably detrimental to the dignity and the reputation of the complainant”, but it considered that the complainant was barred from presenting this argument in his harassment grievance.
The disclosure of these confidential emails, which is not disputed by the Organization, constitutes a serious violation of the obligation of good faith and the duty of care. This plea is well founded.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; duty of care; good faith;
Judgment 4230
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to introduce a maximum length of employment under short-term appointments in breach of applicable rules on consultation with staff representatives.
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
The complaint is well founded. As recognized by the majority of the members of the Appeals Committee, the amendment to the proposed 55-month rule, that is, its immediate application rather than the originally proposed application, was “drastically different from the effects the originally proposed 55-month rule would have had”. Changing the proposal to provide for an immediate application resulted in a significant number of staff members holding a temporary appointment being affected. The majority of the members of the Appeals Committee observed that “[t]he measures taken by the Organization in the follow-up to the issuance of [the Circular], in particular the extensions of contracts until 31 July 2015 for those individuals who had already accumulated 55 months of aggregate service at the time of issuance of the [Circular], indicate[d] the type of effects and potential responses fully informed and open consultations on the amended 55-month rule could have anticipated”. The majority noted “that on 5 March 2015, the SMCC discussed the amended [...] 55-month rule. However, neither the [complainant] nor the Organization submit[ted] that these discussions were ‘consultations’, as required by Staff Rule 302.8.3”. The majority did not consider that the meeting of 5 March constituted a “proper and meaningful consultation”, and it noted also that the “UGSS, according to the SMCC summary record, had informed Management on 5 March 2015 that it ‘was not aware of how many temporary staff would be immediately affected by the new rule on the retroactive limitation of short-term employment to 55 months, and asked to receive the numbers of [the General Service staff] that would be touched and risk to be separated by the Organization’. This information, in the [majority’s] view, would indeed have been useful, in fact, it was crucial to assess the effects of the amended 55-month rule on existing short-term [...] staff [in the General Service category]. However the information was not made available.” The Tribunal finds these considerations to be correct.
The Tribunal finds that by informing the staff representative bodies, at the 5 March meeting, of the decision to proceed with the introduction of the new Policy through the publication of the Circular on 6 March, the Organization was essentially presenting them with a fait accompli. Contrary to the Director-General’s view that the consultation process preceding the issuance of the Circular was appropriate, the Tribunal finds that it was insufficient, as a proper consultation must allow a reasonable amount of time for the consulted body to discuss the issue, have its principal questions answered and provide reasoned advice or recommendations, and must also allow time for the deciding authority to take that advice into consideration prior to taking the decision. In Judgment 380, under 21, the Tribunal stated: “Where there is only a simple obligation to consult, the decision-maker’s duty is to listen or at most to exchange views. The object of the consultation is that [she or] he will make the best decision and the assumption is that [she or] he will not succeed in doing that unless [she or] he has the benefit of the views of the person consulted. The object of negotiation on the other hand is compromise. This object would be frustrated if either party began with the determination not to make any concession in any circumstances, just as the object of consultation would be frustrated if the decision-maker began with a determination not to be influenced by anything that might be said to [her or] him. On both these hypotheses there would be a lack of good faith.”
Keywords:
consultation; good faith; staff representative;
Judgment 4222
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of UNESCO to award full compensation for the injury suffered as a result of an accident recognized as being service-incurred.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]t would be contrary to the principle of good faith, which required that the complainant should receive a timely reply, to considering her appeal as time-barred.
Keywords:
good faith; late appeal;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
