Duty to inform (204,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Duty to inform
Total judgments found: 168
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
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.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
"[T]he principle of transparency as well as the individual’s right to access personal data mandate that staff members receive full and unfettered access to their medical files and obtain copies upon request (paying the associated costs as necessary). The only situation in which this rule does not apply is where specific circumstances temporarily prevent such access. However, a decision to temporarily deny staff members full access to their medical files must be fully justified and reasonable […]. The Tribunal also relevantly stated that in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of staff members to access their own medical files, this right encompasses viewing and obtaining copies of all records and notes in the file, and adding pertinent notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete, and that, so stated, the right to access one’s own medical file gives effect to the organisation’s duty of transparency […]."
"As a rule, access to medical files should be granted also with regard to medical documentation submitted by the staff concerned and, thus, already in possession of the staff member who is requesting access. Indeed, the aim of a request to access a medical file is not only to obtain documentation that the staff member concerned does not have, but also to check that the medical file contains all the relevant documents, including those submitted by the staff concerned."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; formal requirements; medical records; no provision; organisation's duties; personal file;
Judgment 5166
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 cancel the promotion exercise for 2020.
Considerations 4, 5 and 8
Extract:
« [L]e fait de ne pas communiquer aux fonctionnaires les documents produits par une organisation devant l’organe de recours interne constitue une violation du principe du contradictoire. En effet, les fonctionnaires doivent avoir connaissance, fût-ce sous une forme expurgée pour des motifs de confidentialité, des éléments pertinents sur lesquels vont être prises les décisions les concernant […].
[S]’il peut être admis dans certains cas que le défaut de communication d’une pièce soit corrigé ultérieurement, y compris pendant la procédure devant le Tribunal, […], une telle régularisation ne saurait être admise lorsque le document en question revêt, comme c’est le cas en l’espèce, une importance essentielle au regard de l’objet du litige […].
De même, la circonstance que ces documents auraient pu être consultés par le requérant sur le site intranet de l’Organisation ne pallie pas le fait que ceux-ci n’aient pas été communiqués au cours de la procédure de recours interne.
[…]
[L]e vice de procédure censuré ci-dessus justifie l’octroi d’une indemnisation du tort moral causé au requérant par l’atteinte portée à son droit de recours. Le Tribunal estime qu’il sera fait une juste réparation de ce tort en allouant à l’intéressé une indemnité de 2 000 euros. »
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; duty to inform; internal procedure; moral injury; organisation's duties;
Judgment 5134
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his contract based on his unsatisfactory performance.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal has its well-settled case law that organizations may withhold sensitive evidence to protect witnesses. However, safeguards must be in place to ensure that the staff member nevertheless receives sufficient disclosure to contest the substance of the allegations. In the present case, while summaries were provided, the complainant was denied access to the documents that were central to the contested decision. It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him. Additionally, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality (see, for example, Judgment 2700, consideration 6). It also follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member (see, for example, Judgment 2899, consideration 23). […]
As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 4217, consideration 4, regarding the disclosure of an investigation report in a similar situation, that “by refusing to provide the complainant with the report in question during the internal appeals procedure [the Organisation] unlawfully deprived [the complainant] of the possibility of usefully challenging the findings of the investigation.[…]"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899, 4217
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; organisation's interest;
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 5011
140th Session, 2025
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the GCF’s decision to extend his probationary period.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; duty to inform; performance; performance evaluation; probation report; probationary period;
Judgment 5005
140th Session, 2025
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply only a partial adjustment to his salary in relation to inflation.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The principles governing the limits on the discretion of international organizations to set adjustments in staff pay have been clearly established in the Tribunal’s case law [...].
Under the terms of consideration 7 of Judgment 1821 – which are reproduced in the various other precedents cited above – those principles may be concisely stated as follows:
“(a) An international organisation is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all other principles of international civil service law [...].
(b) The chosen methodology must ensure that the results are ‘stable, foreseeable and clearly understood’ [...].
(c) Where the methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure [...].
(d) While the necessity of saving money may be one valid factor to be considered in adjusting salaries provided the method adopted is objective, stable and foreseeable [...], the mere desire to save money at the staff’s expense is not by itself a valid reason for departing from an established standard of reference [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821
Keywords:
adjustment; budgetary reasons; coordinated organisations; discretion; duty to inform; methodology; organisation's duties; patere legem; reckoning; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 4960
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges, firstly, the decision not to promote her in the 2018 annual promotion exercise and, secondly, the refusal to consider a reclassification of her post. She also alleges gender discrimination.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Le Tribunal relève toutefois que le fait que [l]es raisons [pour lesquelles la requérante a été écartée dès la première étape de la procédure de l’exercice de promotion de 2018] n’aient pas été communiquées plus tôt à la requérante, notamment dès qu’elle en a fait la demande et, en tout état de cause, dans le cadre de la procédure de recours interne, a porté atteinte à son droit de recours. Si le Tribunal considère que cela ne constitue pas, au regard de sa jurisprudence citée au considérant 7 ci-dessus, une «grave imperfection» de nature à entraîner l’illégalité de la décision du Directeur général du 10 décembre 2018, cette atteinte au droit de recours de la requérante lui a néanmoins causé un certain préjudice moral (voir, en ce sens, le jugement 4700, au considérant 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4700
Keywords:
duty to inform; moral injury;
Judgment 4850
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied the complainant suffered a moral injury as a result of being denied the right of review of the medical assessment leading directly to the termination of his employment, effective 1 October 2018. He is entitled to moral damages which are assessed in the sum of 10,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
burden of proof; duty to inform; loss of opportunity; medical opinion; moral damages; notification; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to inform; loss of opportunity; mandatory time limit; medical opinion; notification; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment 4830
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied decision dismissing his request for his administrative situation to be regularised, the decision ordering his transfer, the decision to award him a special post allowance in that it excluded a certain period and the amount in question was insufficient, and the decision announcing his promotion in that it was not retroactive and did not place him on step 7 of grade G.4.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he organisation insists on the fact that the complainant was informed in advance of the reasons for his transfer, as is required by the case law (see, for example, Judgment 4690, consideration 6) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4690
Keywords:
duty to inform; motivation; transfer;
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties as well (see, for example, Judgments 4609, consideration 8, 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, or 810, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4451, 4609
Keywords:
consultation; duty to inform; post description; transfer;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
It is firstly clear, on the one hand, that the final investigation report, although requested by the complainant on several occasions, was never forwarded to him during the internal proceedings, even in anonymized form, which made him unable to be properly heard with full knowledge of the facts in these proceedings.
It emerges from the Director General’s decision of 27 March 2020, whereby he dismissed the internal appeal filed against the decision to dismiss the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., that only the conclusions of the investigation report, set out in point 5 thereof, were forwarded to the complainant as an annex to the decision, while, in the decision itself, the Director General merely stated that “the facts examined in [the complainant’s] case [were] not constitutive of moral harassment”. Furthermore, if the Tribunal also refers to these conclusions of the investigation report, it must be noted that they are limited to the following considerations: firstly, “[t]he perception of the facts given by [the complainant] is not in line with the perception by Mr [P.H.] and by all heard MUAC [in Maastricht] witnesses. Documents give prove [sic] of meetings, appraisals, and situations, but do not prove any form of psychological harassment”; secondly, “[t]he investigation only focussed on possible psychological harassment by Mr [P.H.], it was not mandated to go further into the broader context”; thirdly, various observations made by the investigators about how the recruitment programme for young graduates was organized by the Organisation.
The Tribunal considers that such limited disclosure of the conclusions of the investigation report clearly does not meet the requirements laid down in its relevant case law and that the complainant may reasonably claim that he was unable to verify, even at the internal appeal stage, the content of the statements of the alleged harasser and the witnesses or the seriousness of the investigation conducted (compare, in particular, with Judgment 4471, considerations 14 and 23). The Tribunal recalls that it is firmly established that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4739, consideration 10 (and the case law cited therein), 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, 2700, consideration 6, or 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organization must forward to the staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, in particular, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, consideration 17, and 3347, considerations 19 to 21).
The Organisation argues in this regard that the full investigation report is annexed to its reply and that this is in line with the Tribunal’s case law on this point, whereby the reasons for a decision may be provided in other proceedings or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 3316, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 1590, consideration 7).
However, the Tribunal has already recalled in this regard that, while the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected, in certain cases, when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, and 3117, consideration 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 4217 consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, considerations 16, 17 and 29, 3490, consideration 33, and 2315, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 2229, 2315, 2700, 3117, 3214, 3295, 3316, 3347, 3490, 3831, 3995, 4217, 4471, 4739
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; general principle; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to information;
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 4711
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of automatic step advancement pursuant to the introduction of a new career system.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The fact that staff members were informed only 15 days before the entry into force of the reform had no material consequences, considering that no action was required of them prior to its implementation.
Keywords:
duty to inform; notification;
Judgment 4679
136th Session, 2023
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her complaint of harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The applicable staff rules did not provide for cross-examination of the accused person and/or of the witnesses, nor do they require verbatim records of the interviews, which is not contrary to the case law (see Judgments 4579, consideration 3, and 2771, consideration 18). Therefore, the allegations that there were no verbatim records of the interviews and that the complainant was not allowed to cross-examine the accused persons and the witnesses fail. The case law requires that the person who lodged a harassment complaint be informed of the content of the interviews and be allowed to comment on them (see Judgments 4111, consideration 4, 4110, consideration 4, 4109, consideration 4, 4108, consideration 4, and 3875, consideration 3).
[…]
[T]he complainant was provided with the investigation report, together with the minutes of the testimonies attached to it. Even though she received the investigation report only after she had lodged her internal appeal, she was given ten further working days […] to supplement her appeal. She was asked to confirm […] whether she wished to avail herself of this option, and she did not. Therefore, she was allowed to further comment on the investigation report, and she chose not to. Considering that she was able to rely on the investigation report during the appeal proceedings, the Tribunal is satisfied that her right to due process was not breached (see Judgment 4406, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3875, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, 4406, 4579
Keywords:
duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; harassment; investigation report; witness;
Judgment 4609
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the new decision taken by UNESCO pursuant to Judgment 3936 in the context of her appeal against the decision to transfer her to Paris.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law [...] requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties as well (see, for example,Judgments 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, and 810, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4451
Keywords:
duty to inform; post description; transfer;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant is right in contending that the unlawfulness of the impugned decision caused her moral injury. The lack of advance information provided to the complainant about the content of the new duties she was to assume and the unduly short period of time she was given to take up her new post in Paris were such as to cause her stress and anxiety and adversely affected her rights and her dignity, which is characteristic of that form of injury.
Keywords:
duty to inform; moral injury; notification; post description; time limit; transfer;
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 4554
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision deriving from the Administrative Council’s decision CA/D 2/15 to require the recipients of the new retirement pension for health reasons to cease performing gainful activities or employment or to refrain from performing such activities or employment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal [...] notes that, although the file shows that [...] the EPO sent the complainant tables showing the method used to calculate his pension, it cannot be considered, as the Organisation submits, that the complainant’s request for information has thereby become moot, particularly since the tables were not accompanied by any explanations in words and, moreover, they were expressly presented as being only provisional. If the complainant were to continue to wish for additional information concerning the method used to calculate his pension, the Organisation should, under its duty to provide information and its duty of care, endeavour to meet his expectations, provided, at least, that they are formulated with sufficient clarity (see, on this point, Judgment 3963, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3963
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; duty of care; duty to inform; pension;
Judgment 4400
131st Session, 2021
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, impugns the decisions of the Director-General to issue a reprimand against him, to revoke his appointment as a Director, to appoint another person to that post and, finally, to discharge him with notice.
Consideration 31
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that an international organisation is entitled to ask its officials to inform it of any criminal convictions against them and that the duties of good faith and integrity oblige them to reply truthfully to such requests.
Keywords:
criminal sanction; duty of loyalty; duty to inform; staff member's duties;
Judgment 4254
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he rules applied must be communicated to those concerned before the initial decision is taken.
Keywords:
duty to inform;
Judgment 4251
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a selection procedure in which she participated and the appointment made at the end of that procedure.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the Organization’s long-established practice of communicating substantive information on the selection process only at its formal end, is correct, as until that time, there cannot be any certainty as to the final outcome.
Keywords:
duty to inform; practice; selection procedure;
Judgment 4215
129th Session, 2020
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant must have known that the Secretary General was not satisfied with his performance, he was not given the necessary time to remedy this situation. To underline this point, it suffices to recall that the decision to end the complainant’s appointment was taken on 25 April 2013, that he was notified of it – according to his uncontested account – on 30 April and that it took effect on 1 May, whereas the complainant had taken up his duties just a few weeks previously on 1 March 2013, and his probation period was due to end on 30 June. The complainant thus had very little time to prove his worth and, above all, was given no opportunity to take appropriate action in response to the criticisms directed at him. This is made still clearer by the emails submitted by the Organisation showing that the Secretary General’s criticisms of the complainant were, for the most part, not made until the fortnight immediately preceding the decision of 25 April. The fact is that when the complainant received the decision, he was presented with a fait accompli, which blatantly contradicts the requirement laid down in the case law that in such a situation a staff member must be granted sufficient time to enable him to improve his performance.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; probationary period; termination of employment;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
