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 2210
94th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Where a reserve recruitment list is resorted to, the vacant post is filled without applying the competition procedure provided for in the above-mentioned provisions. Staff members must be given the possibility of entering competitions on the basis of which reserve lists for filling 'similar' posts are to be established. That possibility is denied them if they do not know what is meant by 'similar' posts. [...] The broader the definition of 'similar', the greater the risk of such occurrences. The requirements of equal treatment, objectivity and transparency in appointment procedures place the [organisation] under an obligation to provide a clear and precise definition of the concept of a 'similar' post. [...] It is the responsibility of the [organisation] to specify, in notices of competition, the nature of the posts which can be considered to be 'similar' for the purposes of any subsequent use of a reserve list."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; definition; equal treatment; good faith; organisation's duties; right; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2163
93rd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"An appointment by an international organisation is a discretionary decision. Being subject to only limited review, it may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal will, in cases like the present, exercise its power of review with special caution, its function being not to judge the candidates on merit but to allow the organisation full responsibility for its choice. [...] Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever his hopes of success may be (see Judgments 1077 [...], 1497 [...] and 1549 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 1497, 1549
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; equal treatment; flaw; formal flaw; good faith; international civil service principles; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right;
Judgment 2158
93rd Session, 2002
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant pleads a "material error". The gist of his argument is that the Tribunal failed to admit the existence of promises by the Agency concerning the renewal of his appointment.
The Tribunal noted in Judgment 2034, under 15, 16 and 17, that the complainant cited specific promises to that effect. He relied among other things on a statement of 22 July 1998 by the former Director of the Institute of Air Navigation Services in Luxembourg. The Tribunal found that, even if there had been promises made, the complainant had failed to prove that they had been taken by the competent authority, since it is the Director General who has sole responsibility for employment policy of Eurocontrol. The Tribunal further observed that the complainant had failed to prove that he was to be given a permanent appointment or that the competent authority had assured him at some stage that his appointment would be renewed and subsequently converted into a permanent one.
The conclusion is that the Tribunal did examine the evidence and made an appraisal of it which may not be challenged in an application for review. The plea is therefore inadmissible.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2034
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith;
Judgment 2152
93rd Session, 2002
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11 and 14
Extract:
"The requirement of good faith dealings is a two-way street. While staff members are under no obligation to assist the administration in any actions the latter may wish to take against them, they do have a duty not to so conduct themselves as to deliberately frustrate normal dealings with their employer. The latter is entitled to assume that the employees will receive and accept written communications sent to them in the normal course of affairs. [...] The fact that the complainant, by his own conduct, only took possession of the letter and became aware of his dismissal [the day after the expiry of his probation] cannot prevent the [Organisation] from having given him valid notice of dismissal."
Keywords:
date of notification; good faith; notice; probationary period; separation from service; staff member's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 2116
92nd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Relations between an organisation and its staff must be governed by good faith. Furthermore, an organisation must treat its staff with due consideration and avoid causing them undue injury. In particular, it must inform them in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or rightful interests (see, for example, Judgment 1756 [...], under 10(a) and the others cited therein; and for more recent cases, Judgments 2017 [...]; 2051 [...]; 2067 [...]; and 2072 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 2017, 2051, 2067, 2072
Keywords:
case law; decision; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2112
92nd Session, 2002
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(c)
Extract:
Subject to the conditions laid down in the case law, an organisation can, even where there is no decision, be bound by a promise or assurances given to a staff member.
In this case, the fact that the complainant was given a copy of the memorandum of 9 June 1999 clearly did not imply a promise that the formalities would culminate in a decision. There were still uncertainties, particularly regarding the 2000-2001 biennium: there might well be a new Director-General, the budget had not yet been adopted, and a post had to be identified.
In his further brief the complainant tries to prove that the words "foreseen for Mr [...]" were written opposite a specific post in a budget document, or a copy of it kept by the Administration, which the complainant came across by chance. The Organization denies, and the complainant fails to prove, that that was so. In any event, it is immaterial for the reasons stated above. Being for internal administrative purposes only, the document would not constitute evidence of either a firm commitment or a promise by the Organization to appoint the complainant.
The complainant has produced no other evidence from which the existence of a promise to appoint him can be
inferred (even if both he and the former Director-General wanted him to be appointed).
Consequently, he may rely neither on the existence of a contract for a period of two years nor a promise that such a
contract would be concluded.
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; promise;
Judgment 2081
92nd Session, 2002
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The issue to be resolved [...] is whether the complainants are barred from objecting to the [organisation]'s failure to take into account the corrected level of salaries for 1995 in determining the salaries for 1996 and 1997, because they did not first challenge their salaries for 1996 and 1997 [... ] when they were originally fixed. But in view of the circumstances, to make such a demand on them would be pedantic and wanting in good faith. As the parties were aware at the time, the salary levels for 1995 were under challenge [...] Moreover, any change in salary levels will ordinarily affect pay in subsequent years. The staff therefore had good reason to believe that a change in pay for 1995 would have a "knock on" effect on the level of salaries used as a basis for calculating pay in the future. Moreover, the [organisation] could be in no doubt that this was what staff would expect. In these circumstances, and having given them no indication to the contrary, the [organisation] could not require staff to challenge each new determination of their salaries on the conditional and hypothetical basis that any successful challenge to the remuneration for a previous year (in this case 1995) should automatically be carried through to the salary levels taken into account in subsequent years."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; consequence; formal requirements; general principle; good faith; legitimate expectation; official; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; salary; time bar;
Judgment 2066
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"When an organisation hints that it will reconsider a decision affecting a staff member, it cannot reasonably expect the latter to challenge that decision. Nor may the staff member lodge an appeal against it unless the administration expressly states that the appeal procedure will take its course despite attempts to settle the case. In such instances, the rule that confirmation of an earlier decision sets off no new time limit for appeal does not apply."
Keywords:
case law; confirmatory decision; decision; enforcement; exception; express decision; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; staff member's duties; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2060
91st Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Candidates who apply for a post to be filled by competition, whatever their hopes of success may be, are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair competition. An organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and when the process proves flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must 'shield' the successful candidate from any injury (see for example Judgments 1990 and 2020 and the others cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2020
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; competition cancelled; condition; due process; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; injury; international civil service principles; post; qualifications;
Judgment 2037
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainants challenge the appointment of another staff member. The Appeals Committee considered that the appeals had not been filed in time. But the complainants argue that the challenged appointment was not definitive until the offer had been signed and the conditions for appointment satisfied. "When what is challenged is a contract between an organisation and a future employee, the act which may be impugned is the contract as communicated by the organisation, irrespective of the possibilities open to the contracting parties to appeal internally such as a medical examination still to be undergone [...] legal certainty requires communications from an organisation to be reliable so that all concerned know when the time limit for an appeal starts to run. this is all the more important when the organisation is not bound to reveal the exact content of the contract. In this instance, [...] since the organisation had already notified its decision and its agreement with the future [staff member] on his terms of appointment, the signing of the contract and the prior medical examination appeared to be mere formalities. It would have been sheer pedantry to insist that they be completed and the staff so informed before the appointment of the [staff member] was announced." The time limit for an appeal had therefore started to run as soon as the personnel had been informed of the contested appointment.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2017
90th Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An organisation must interpret the statements of a staff member in good faith and [...] as part of its duty to spare the staff member unnecessary injury, it may also be called upon to provide procedural guidance and help to put right a mistake (see Judgment 1734, [...] under 3(g))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734
Keywords:
good faith; injury; interpretation; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's interest; statement of intent;
Judgment 1934
88th Session, 2000
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was offered an exceptional separation package on the condition that he not appeal his separation and/or its terms and conditions. He accepted the same day. "There is no evidence that these commitments - which the complainant now appears to regret - were tainted by a fraudulent attitude or pressure from the [organisation]. The complainant accepted the terms and conditions of the settlement that he made with the organisation, some of which were very favourable, and he cannot challenge them now."
Keywords:
abolition of post; agreed termination; good faith; terminal entitlements; termination of employment; waiver of right of appeal;
Judgment 1924
88th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant accepted a settlement proposal by the organization within the imposed deadline. However, four months went by and he heard nothing more on the subject so he wrote to inquire when the settlement would be effected. One month later he was informed that the organization had learned that certain costs would be higher than it had foreseen, therefore, it preferred that the dispute be decided by the Administrative Tribunal. "Efforts made for the resolution of disputes are to be encouraged and the principle of good faith requires that if an offer is accepted the other party cannot then withdraw from it. The offer [...] should, accordingly, be implemented."
Keywords:
acceptance; good faith; intention of parties; offer; offer withdrawn; organisation's duties; promise; settlement out of court; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1897
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"As the organisation did not contest the receivability of a premature appeal [...] during the internal procedure, the principle of good faith prevents it from doing so subsequently."
Keywords:
good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1894
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is not for the complainant [...] to judge whether the information requested by [the insurance company] is necessary in order to enable it to assess her claims. That is a matter for the professional assessment of [the insurance company] and its medical adviser and the Tribunal would not interfere unless it was satisfied that the information was being sought for some abusive or improper purpose."
Keywords:
evidence; good faith; health insurance; illness; insurance; judicial review; limits; medical examination; medical expenses; staff member's duties; tribunal;
Judgment 1848
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant questions the right of the insurance company to which she is affiliated to contact her physicians directly to seek information. "The law is clear that [the insurance company] is entitled to any information which identifies the nature of the alleged illness and allows it to determine whether the prescribed treatment is appropriate and necessary [...] Of course the complainant is entitled to require that such information only be made available to [the insurance company's] medical adviser and be treated by the latter in confidence but she is not entitled to withhold from them any right of access whatsoever to the required medical information. Her unwillingness to allow such access goes against her duty to deal in good faith with her insurers."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1288
Keywords:
conduct; confidential evidence; elements; good faith; health insurance; illness; insurance; medical consultant; medical records; refusal; safeguard; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1847
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The question of both legal and translation costs is entirely within the discretion of the Tribunal. Where a valid, sufficient and binding offer to settle is made by a defendant in the course of proceedings, and the complainant continues with the complaint in the face of such an offer, the Tribunal may well deny costs. The Tribunal also notes that in the present case the complainant filed her internal appeal almost immediately and without apparently requesting information from the defendant or from [the insurance company] as to the progress of her claim: she appears to be more interested in litigation than in dealing in good faith with her employer. Parties and their legal advisers should be encouraged to settle their claims and dissuaded from time-wasting disputation."
Keywords:
case pending; costs; good faith; no award of costs; settlement out of court; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1832
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A staff member who appeals to the wrong [internal appeals] body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. Time and again the Tribunal has held that, though rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must be construed with common sense and not set traps for the staff member: see Judgment1734 [and] any penalty for breaking such a rule must be reasonably fitting. [...] When there are two authorities that may be competent it is easy enough for one to forward a misdirected appeal to the other. If the staff member filed it in time, even with the wrong authority, then it will be receivable, and that authority will simply forward it without ado to the other one."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734
Keywords:
competence; complainant; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 1821
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The principles governing the limits on the discretion of international organisations to set adjustments in staff pay [...] 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 [...]." (See cited case law.)
Keywords:
adjustment; budgetary reasons; case law; condition; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; criteria; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; executive body; good faith; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 1804
86th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
The promotion of Mr C., presented as the fulfilment of a promise made to him on recruitment, gave rise to a decision adopted on 7 December 1994. "Only that decision was notified to the staff. So the complainants, who were unaware of the promise, were in good faith in challenging the promotion on the grounds that it was in breach of the Rule it actually cited. So they were right in saying that Mr C. had been promoted to A4 even though he did not fully qualify under the [relevant] rules [...]. Because of the unusual circumstances in which Mr C. was promoted the complainants were also right to challenge the decision: the [Organization] had on the face of it failed to observe the general principle of equal treatment because in promoting Mr C. it did not abide by the requirements of the Service Regulations or by the criteria for promotion to which the complainants were themselves subject. The conclusion is that the complainants did suffer moral injury and each of them is entitled under that head to [compensation]".
Keywords:
appointment; breach; cause of action; condition; decision; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; grade; injury; moral injury; promise; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
