Good faith (193,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Good faith
Total judgments found: 201
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 3986
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3887.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The parties must work together in good faith to execute the judgment (see Judgment 3823, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3823
Keywords:
execution of judgment; good faith;
Judgment 3903
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Considerations 6 and 17
Extract:
[I]n the circumstances as the complainant understood them to be, he did not request a review of the 16 June decision to terminate his appointment within the thirty-day time limit. Although the Tribunal has consistently stressed the requirement of strict adherence to the time limits with respect to the filing of an internal appeal, there are exceptions to this requirement. In Judgment 3687, consideration 10, the Tribunal stated: “The case law also recognizes that in very limited circumstances an exception may be made to the rule of strict adherence to the relevant time limit. The circumstances identified in the case law are: ‘where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time or where the organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her so as to do him or her harm, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith’ (see Judgment 3405, under 17; citations omitted); and ‘where some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or where [the staff member concerned by that decision] is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he or she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken’ (see Judgment 3140, under 4; citations omitted).”
[...]
The way in which the decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment was, in the letter, merged with the decision to abolish his position, the misleading content of the letter coupled with the vague and confusing language of the notification of the termination of the appointment was a breach of the ICC’s duty to act in good faith. In these circumstances, an exception to the rule of the strict adherence to the time limit for bringing an internal appeal challenging the decision provided for in Staff Rule 111.1(b) was correctly made by the Appeals Board. It follows that the complaint is receivable before the Tribunal.
Keywords:
exception; good faith; time limit;
Judgment 3861
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her flexible working arrangements during the breastfeeding period.
Consideration 9
Extract:
In Judgment 3024, under 12, the Tribunal recalled that the 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 officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2768, 3024
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3847
124th Session, 2017
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In both complaints, the complainant contests the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The question whether the first complaint is receivable turns on whether, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article VII of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complainant filed it within the stipulated ninety days following the decision not to extend her contract. The principle of good faith dealings which applies to the relations between international civil servants and the organisations that employ them prevents a staff member from thwarting timely notification by her or his conduct. Accordingly, in considerations 11 and 12 of Judgment 2152 the Tribunal stated as follows [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2152
Keywords:
good faith; notification; time bar;
Judgment 3845
124th Session, 2017
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently found that an organisation which employs staff members on a probationary basis must not only provide guidance, instructions and advice on carrying out duties; it must also set objectives for such staff members so that they know what criteria will be used to appraise their performance. It must, in good time and in clear language, inform a staff member of any aspects of her or his performance that are deemed unsatisfactory and warn her or him of the risk of dismissal after the probationary period so that both parties can take appropriate steps to remedy the situation sufficiently early. These requirements flow from the general principles applicable in international civil service law, in particular the principle of good faith, the duty of care and the employer’s duty to respect the dignity of its employees (see Judgments 3481, under 6 and 7, 3482, under 11, and 3678, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3481, 3482, 3678
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; probationary period;
Judgment 3823
124th Session, 2017
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3225.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under Article VI, paragraph 1, second and third sentences, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal’s judgments are final and without appeal, but it may consider applications for interpretation, execution or review of those judgments. As the case law has consistently stated (since Judgment 82, under 6), the Tribunal’s judgments are therefore immediately operative, a principle also stemming from their res judicata authority. International organisations that have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action is required by a judgment, which must be executed as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 1887, under 8, 3003, under 12, 3152, under 11, and 3394, under 9). Furthermore, the parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments. Execution must occur within a reasonable period of time, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, especially the nature and the extent of the action which the organisation is required to take (see, for example, Judgments 2684, under 6, 3066, under 6, and 3656, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VI, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 1887, 2684, 3003, 3066, 3152, 3394, 3656
Keywords:
execution of judgment; good faith; moral injury; res judicata;
Judgment 3647
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
[T]he fact that the real reason for the contested decision was initially concealed from the complainant misled him as to whether he had an interest in challenging it. Indeed, although the complainant presumably had no reason to object when he was informed that the selection process had been cancelled because of “organizational changes”, which, by their very nature, are made at the Director General’s discretion, this was plainly not the case when it became apparent that this decision was really designed to avoid the foreseeable outcome of the competition in which he had been shortlisted. The complainant was therefore unduly deprived of the opportunity to appeal against this decision within the normal time limit, in breach of the principle of good faith.
Keywords:
cause of action; good faith; time limit;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he principle of good faith, from which flow the requirement of mutual trust between an organisation and its staff and the requirement of fairness in appeals proceedings, in any case dictates that such an objection may not properly be raised at this stage of proceedings [in a surrejoinder].
Keywords:
good faith; surrejoinder;
Judgment 3619
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of her internal appeal against the decisions not to convert her fixed-term contract into a permanent contract and not to select her for a vacant permanent post.
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
It is necessary to refer to the various elements of a promise that give rise to a legal liability to honour the promise. They were correctly identified by the IAC in its report though there was a singular failure on the part of the majority to address the third element. The first element is that there must be a promise to act or not act or to allow. The second element is that the promise must come from someone who is competent or deemed competent to make it. The third element is that the breach of the promise would cause injury to the person who relies on it. The fourth is that the position in law should not have altered between the date of the promise and the date on which fulfilment is due. The third element has two sub-elements. One is that the promisee has relied on the promise and the second is that this reliance has caused injury to the promisee in the event of non-fulfilment of the promise.
There are numerous decisions of the Tribunal applying these principles (see, for example, Judgments 3204, under 9, 3148, under 7, 3005, under 12, 2158, under 5, 2112, under 7, and 1278, under 12). However they have, as their foundation, the decision of the Tribunal in Judgment 782. It is instructive to review the facts of that case and how the principle containing the four elements, propounded by the Tribunal in that judgment, were satisfied so as to result in a legal obligation on the part of the defendant organisation to honour the promise or, as it turned out, to pay damages for its failure to do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 782, 1278, 2112, 2158, 3005, 3148, 3204
Keywords:
good faith; promise;
Judgment 3566
121st Session, 2016
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3239.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[T]he complainant, who has a duty to cooperate in good faith in the execution of the judgment in question, could not, as she did, refuse to provide the CDE with the information and supporting documents that she was asked to produce (see Judgment 2684, under 6).
If she wished to challenge the validity of this request, she had only to lodge an application for interpretation of [the] Judgment [...] with the Tribunal, which she did not do either."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684
Keywords:
application for interpretation; execution of judgment; good faith;
Judgment 3407
119th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the implied decision to reject his claim against the new calculation of his pension rights.
Consideration 15
Extract:
As is well established in the case law, bad faith cannot be presumed and must therefore be proven by the submissions (see, for example, Judgments 2282, under 6, 2293, under 11, or 2800, under 21). This case law must be applied particularly rigorously in the instant case, where the allegation of bad faith levelled at the complainant is tantamount to an accusation of fraud, or the use of forged documents in legal proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2282, 2293, 2800
Keywords:
good faith;
Judgment 3394
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal considered that, by taking it upon itself to interpret Judgment 3119, WIPO breached its duty to execute that judgment fully and correctly.
Consideration 14
Extract:
In accordance with the principle of good faith and good administrative practice, the Organization will supply the complainant with the details of the sums due to him, as he requested.
Keywords:
duty to inform; good faith;
Judgment 3375
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims, on the basis of an alleged acquired right, the application of the invalidity pension scheme in force prior to his placement on non-active status on grounds of invalidity.
Consideration 20
Extract:
It is trite principle that an international organisation owes its staff members a general duty of care not to cause them undue hardships. Accordingly, the relations between an organisation and a staff member must be governed by good faith (see, for example, Judgments 2116, under 5, and 1526, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1526, 2116
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith;
Judgment 3370
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who performed duties at a higher level than his grade, impugns the decision not to grant him a promotion and acting allowance, and partially succeeds on the basis that the Organisation breached its duty of care.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"While the complainant was not legally entitled to have his post upgraded nor was he legally entitled to be appointed to the position for which he had applied, he was entitled to have the Organisation act in good faith towards him and respect his dignity. It was an affront to his dignity to be exposed to a delay of over two years to resolve his status in circumstances where he believed, and more importantly where he knew his immediate superior also believed, he had been performing duties of [a higher] post and was suitable for appointment to such a post."
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3353
118th Session, 2014
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the non-renewal of their contracts following a restructuring process and obtain moral damages for the serious affront to their dignity and the failure to give reasonable notice.
Consideration 26
Extract:
"The Tribunal’s case law states that the relations between an international organisation and a staff member must be governed by good faith, respect, transparency and consideration for their dignity (see Judgment 1479, under 12). Accordingly, an organisation is required to treat its staff with due consideration and to avoid causing them undue injury. An organisation must care for the dignity of its staff members and not cause them unnecessary personal distress and disappointment where this could be avoided. In particular, good faith requires an organisation to inform a staff member in advance of any action that it might take which may impair a staff member’s rights or rightful interest."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1479
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; respect for dignity; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3264
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision not to renew her contract after an extension of her probationary period and is granted damages.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; decision quashed; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension of contract; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[D]uring the extension of the probationary period, [...] its duty to act in good faith obligated the Organization to give the complainant guidance and a meaningful opportunity to improve measured against objective standards."
Keywords:
good faith; organisation's duties; work appraisal;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The purpose of probation is to give an organisation an opportunity to evaluate a probationer’s suitability for a position (see Judgment 2646, under 5). This gives rise to corollary obligations on the part of the organisation to warn a staff member in a timely manner that her or his performance is unsatisfactory, to give the staff member guidance and an opportunity to improve and to set objectives against which improvement can be measured. These are “fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity” (see Judgment 2414, under 23)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2646
Keywords:
duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; probationary period; respect for dignity; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 3234
115th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugned the decision to abolish his post following a restructuring.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he Commission has acted inappropriately by refusing to present evidence requested by the Joint Appeals Panel, on the grounds that it did not consider the evidence to be pertinent to the appeal. It was for the Panel to decide, upon examination of the evidence, whether or not they were pertinent. Considering the fact that the evidence could have had an effect on the Panel’s findings, and considering the Commission’s refusal to submit to the authority of the Joint Appeals Panel without giving any reasonable explanation for such a refusal, the Tribunal finds that this is a violation of its duty to act in good faith and undermines the proper functioning of the internal appeals process. This will be taken into account in the calculation of the award of damages to the complainant (see Judgment 1319, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1319
Keywords:
advisory body; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal’s case law, an administrative authority, when dealing with a claim, 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, the non-retroactivity of administrative decisions and the protection of acquired rights, will the above rule not apply (see Judgments 2459, under 9, 2986, under 32, or 3034, under 33)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2459, 2986, 3034
Keywords:
acquired right; applicable law; breach; date; decision; exception; general principle; good faith; non-retroactivity; patere legem; request by a party;
Judgment 3204
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims moral damages for the Union’s failure to submit to its Council the matter of the recognition of same-sex marriages.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"It is settled by the Tribunal’s case law that, according to the rules of good faith, anyone who was a staff member of an organisation and to whom a promise was made, may expect that promise to be kept by the organisation. However, the right to fulfilment of the promise is conditional. One condition is that the promise should be substantive. Another is that the promise is from someone who is competent or deemed competent to make it. Yet another is that the breach should cause injury to the person who relies on the promise (see Judgment 782)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 782
Keywords:
condition; definition; duty of care; formal requirements; good faith; organisation's duties; promise; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3188
114th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to update her job description, not to select her for a G-6 position and her alleged subsequent demotion.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that a failure to respond to a legitimate request of a staff member within a reasonable time may be deemed to be a refusal of the request if the staff member elects to accept that refusal. Additionally, egregious delay in responding to a reasonable request may involve a breach of the obligation to deal with the staff member in good faith. In the present case, the failure of the IAEA to provide the complainant with an updated job description over several years involved a violation of her rights for which she is entitled to compensation."
Keywords:
compensation; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; refusal; request by a party; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3164
114th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of her request for a transfer, alleging harassment.
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"[A]n organisation must interpret a staff member’s claims in good faith and read them as it might reasonably have been expected to do (see, in particular, Judgment 1768, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1768
Keywords:
claim; good faith; interpretation; organisation's duties;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
