Bad faith (712,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Bad faith
Total judgments found: 50

1, 2, 3 | 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.

  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 5175

  
  141st Session, 2026
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant requests the retroactive payment of the dependants’ allowance and the related family allowances for his two daughters.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  “The complainant’s submissions that the President’s decision to reject his internal appeals violated the principle of equal treatment and was taken in bad faith also fail as the complainant provides no evidence to discharge his burden to prove these alleged violations (see, for example, Judgments 4983, consideration 9, and 4277, consideration 21, with regard to the principle of equal treatment, and Judgment 4897, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein, with regard to bad faith).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4277, 4897, 4983
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; equal treatment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5150

  
  141st Session, 2026
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant – who claims to have performed duties at a level higher than her grade – challenges the rejection of her request for acting pay.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  “Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, bad faith cannot be presumed and must be proven by the evidence (see Judgment 4897, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, as the complainant does not provide evidence to discharge the burden she bears to prove that the decision to reject her request for acting pay was taken in bad faith, her allegation is rejected.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4897
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; burden of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5142

  
  141st Session, 2026
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  «Dans la mesure où la requérante entendrait fonder sa demande sur un retard excessif dans la procédure de recours interne, le Tribunal relève que les circonstances du présent litige, qui concernaient également de nombreux autres membres ou anciens membres du personnel et nécessitaient tant une interprétation du droit français que des négociations parallèles menées avec les autorités françaises, étaient relativement complexes et sont de nature à justifier en grande partie le temps mis pour statuer sur le recours interne introduit par la requérante. Par ailleurs, il ne ressort pas du dossier que la défenderesse ait fait preuve de mauvaise foi dans le traitement du recours interne de l’intéressée (voir, dans le même sens, les jugements 4671, au considérant 14, et 4670, au considérant 27). »

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4670, 4671
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; burden of proof; moral injury;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5133

  
  141st Session, 2026
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests IOM’s decision to maintain its earlier decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of discharge from service after due notice and to pay her 50 per cent of the termination indemnity in execution of Judgment 4460.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  The Tribunal has pointed out many times in its case law that bad faith may not be presumed and must be proved (see Judgments 4451, consideration 16, and 4345, consideration 6). The burden of proof is on the complainant, and to support her allegation she must demonstrate that there was malice, ill-will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose (see Judgment 3902, consideration 11). Similarly, it is incumbent on the complainant to establish that actions or conduct complained of were retaliatory (see Judgments 4391, consideration 13, and 4363, consideration 12). A mere assumption or suspicion of retaliation does not meet the requisite standard of proof, the onus of which is borne by the complainant (see Judgment 4867, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3902, 4345, 4363, 4391, 4451, 4867
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; burden of proof; retaliation; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5082

  
  140th Session, 2025
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the increase in employees’ contribution rate to the healthcare insurance scheme.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s settled case law, bad faith cannot be presumed and must be proven by the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4675, consideration 6, 4333, consideration 15, 4161, consideration 9, 3902, consideration 11, or 2800, consideration 21).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3902, 4161, 4333, 4675
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5050

  
  140th Session, 2025
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: La requérante conteste les décisions prises par l’Organisation concernant la demande de reclassement de son poste.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  En vertu d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal, la mauvaise foi ne se présume pas et ne peut, en conséquence, être retenue que si la preuve en est rapportée au dossier (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4897, au considérant 10, 4675, au considérant 6, 4333, au considérant 15, ou 4161, au considérant 9). Ce même principe jurisprudentiel s’applique en cas d’invocation d’un parti pris défavorable à l’égard d’un fonctionnaire (voir notamment les jugements 4502, au considérant 10, 3914, au considérant 7, et 3380, au considérant 9) ou d’allégation de détournement de pouvoir (voir notamment les jugements 4696, au considérant 17, 4654, au considérant 22, ou 4283, au considérant 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 3914, 4161, 4283, 4333, 4502, 4654, 4675, 4696, 4897
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• 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 4

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal recalls that bias, bad faith, and abuse of authority must be proven, and the complainant bears the burden of proof. Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve complainants, who bear the burden of proving their allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where, as here, the actions of the Organization, which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice, are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see Judgments 4745, consideration 12, 4608, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein; with regard to misuse of authority, see also Judgment 4427, consideration 12; with regard to bad faith, see also Judgment 3738, consideration 9). In the present case, the allegations concerning the IOD and the former Director General are merely speculative and, thus, unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3738, 4427, 4608, 4745
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4937

  
  139th Session, 2025
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she encumbered and to terminate her contract.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  Additionally, the complainant’s submission, which seems to suggest that, in abuse of authority, the subject decisions were influenced by the Chair-in-Office misapprehends the relationship between IOM and the Member States that funded the GFMD. Furthermore, the complainant’s submission that the subject decisions were arbitrarily made in unnecessary haste is not supported by the facts or the record. As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, abuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see, for example, Judgments 4283, consideration 9, 4081, consideration 19, 3543, consideration 20, and 2116, consideration 4(a)). Moreover, bias, prejudice, and bad faith cannot be presumed, they must be proven and the complainant bears the burden of proof (see Judgment 4688, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve complainants, who bear the burden of proving their allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal (see Judgments 4841, consideration 4, and 4745, consideration 12). The complainant does not provide evidence (as against surmise and speculation) to discharge the burden she bears to prove that the decisions were taken out of malice; in bad faith or were motivated by bias against her on the part of the UAE’s Chair-in-Office. For the foregoing reasons, the third ground is unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 3543, 4081, 4283, 4688, 4745, 4841
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4932

  
  139th Session, 2025
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of ITU, challenges its alleged refusal to take steps to ensure that the organization’s insurers would cover his daughter’s medical expenses and his own non-medical expenses, as well as the lack of response to his requests for clarifications related to his health care contributions.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The complainant has not provided any evidence or analysis to establish that there was bias, ill will, malice, bad faith or other improper purpose on which to base an award of punitive damages (see, for example, Judgments 4756, consideration 11, 4286, consideration 19, and 3419, consideration 8). Accordingly, the request for punitive damages has no grounds and will be dismissed.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419, 4286, 4756
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; bias; malice; punitive damages;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4924

  
  139th Session, 2025
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.

  Considerations 7-10

  Extract:

  Toutefois, le Tribunal estime qu’il ne peut pour autant être tenu pour établi au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la plainte ainsi déposée ait constitué une dénonciation calomnieuse. Une plainte ne saurait en effet être ainsi qualifiée que si elle a été introduite de mauvaise foi. Or, en l’espèce, aucun élément de preuve versé au dossier ne permet d’affirmer avec certitude que le requérant avait clairement conscience, lorsqu’il a formé sa plainte pour propos mensongers dirigée contre M. Do., de la fausseté des accusations contenues dans celle-ci.
  […] Le Tribunal relève d’abord, à cet égard, que, dans la décision de licenciement […], cette tentative de fraude est présentée tantôt comme une faute distincte de la dénonciation calomnieuse […] tantôt comme la circonstance aggravante d’une faute unique que constituerait cette dénonciation calomnieuse. La confusion résultant de cette ambiguïté n’est pas admissible dans une décision telle qu’une sanction disciplinaire – et, qui plus est, une révocation –, dont les motifs doivent être définis avec une particulière rigueur.
  Mais cette seconde charge ne pouvait de toute façon être retenue. Il ressort en effet des termes mêmes de la qualification de cette dernière que la tentative de fraude reprochée au requérant était «matérialisée par [la] dénonciation calomnieuse» qui lui était par ailleurs imputée. Dès lors que le Tribunal estime, comme il a été dit au considérant précédent, que cette dénonciation calomnieuse n’est elle-même pas établie, la tentative de fraude en question se trouve privée, par voie de conséquence, de son élément constitutif essentiel.
  Au surplus, la faute tenant au dépôt d’une plainte abusive n’aurait pu légalement justifier, en elle-même, l’infliction d’une sanction disciplinaire aussi lourde qu’un licenciement.
  Il résulte de la jurisprudence du Tribunal que, si l’autorité investie du pouvoir disciplinaire au sein d’une organisation internationale dispose d’un pouvoir d’appréciation quant au choix de la sanction infligée à l’un de ses fonctionnaires à raison d’une faute commise par celui-ci, sa décision doit cependant, dans tous les cas, respecter le principe de proportionnalité qui s’impose en la matière (voir notamment les jugements 4457, au considérant 20, 3944, au considérant 12, 3927, au considérant 13, ou 3640, au considérant 29).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944, 4457
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; discretion; judicial review; proportionality;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  [U]nder the Tribunal’s settled case law, bad faith cannot be presumed and must be proven by the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4675, consideration 6, 4333, consideration 15, 4161, consideration 9, 3902, consideration 11, or 2800, consideration 21).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3902, 4161, 4333, 4675
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; burden of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4855

  
  138th Session, 2024
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Mr P. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; bias; burden of proof; competition; discrimination; prejudice; recommendation; selection board; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4854

  
  138th Session, 2024
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Director, Office of Strategy, Planning and Resources Management, following a competitive selection process.

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Ms C. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; burden of proof; competition; discrimination; prejudice; recommendation; selection board; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4851

  
  138th 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 appointment at the end of the probationary period.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  As regards the complainant’s second ground of challenge pertaining to an improper motive, the Tribunal’s case law states that bad faith may not be presumed and must be proved. The burden of proof is on the complainant, who shall 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). In the present case, the complainant did not provide any persuasive evidence to prove that the impugned decision was based on an improper motive.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3902, 4505
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith;
  

  
  
  

• 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 9

  Extract:

  Fundamental to the first contention is the fact that the decision, as explained by the complainant in his pleas, “was based on the personal prejudice which perniciously lay hidden behind the unlawful initiation of the unlawful investigation process against [him]”. This is a reference to the investigation leading to the laying of charges of misconduct against the complainant on 14 December 2016. This is tantamount to a claim of bad faith which must be proven and cannot be presumed (see, for example, Judgment 4753, consideration 13). But beyond generalised assertions, the complainant provides no persuasive evidence which directly, or inferentially, establishes personal prejudice of the type relied on.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4753
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; bias; burden of proof; evidence; personal prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4848

  
  138th Session, 2024
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The other and related decisions apparent from the letter of 31 January 2018 were the decisions to offer the complainant a three-month extension of his fixed-term appointment and to advertise the position of Director of the (about to be created) CMD. In his pleas, the complainant challenges the creation of this position contending, amongst other things, it was not materially different to the position he then formally occupied and was the product of a reorganisation which was illusory rather than substantial. It is unnecessary to repeat the various ways this is put by the complainant. However, mention should be made of a submission, which is tantamount to an allegation that the reorganisation was not a bona fide exercise of an undoubtedly wide discretionary power the executive head of an international organisation has to institute administrative and other structural changes within the organisation with consequential effects on existing posts, including their redefinition or abolition (see, for example, Judgments 4599, considerations 11 and 12, 4353, consideration 7, 3238, consideration 7, and 3169, consideration 7). This is, in substance, an allegation of bad faith. However, bad faith may not be presumed, and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see Judgments 4682, consideration 3, 4353, consideration 12, and 2800, consideration 21). In the present case, there is not a scintilla of evidence that the reorganisation decision did not involve a bona fide exercise of the wide discretionary power of the executive head. This plea is unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3169, 3238, 4353, 4599, 4682
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; bad faith; burden of proof; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4841

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she used to hold and not to renew her contract beyond 31 December 2020.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The Tribunal notes that bias, prejudice, and bad faith cannot be presumed, they must be proven and the complainant bears the burden of proof (see Judgment 4688, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve complainants, who bear the burden of proving their allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where, as here, the actions of the organization, which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice, are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see Judgment 4745, consideration 12).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4688, 4745
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; bias; burden of proof; prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4817

  
  138th Session, 2024
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  Bad faith and prejudice must be proven, and the complainant bears the burden of proof (see, for example, Judgments 4745, consideration 12, 4478, consideration 13, 4347, consideration 29, and 3927, consideration 12). Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where the actions of the organization, which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice, are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see Judgment 4745, consideration 12). The fact that the impugned decision contains ambiguous wording does not prove, by itself, that the decision was tainted with bad faith and prejudice against the complainant.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3927, 4347, 4478, 4745
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4738

  
  137th Session, 2024
  Energy Charter Conference
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to consider him not eligible for the appointment of Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat for a mandate starting in January 2022.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  One of the subsidiary arguments is that there had been an intentional misuse of authority by one of the Contracting Parties “forcing” a vote and pressuring other Contracting Parties to vote in a particular way. This is tantamount to an accusation of bad faith which cannot be presumed and must be proved (see Judgment 4711, consideration 7). The complainant has failed to do so.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4711
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; executive body;
  

1, 2, 3 | next >