Claim (18, 19, 647, 20, 92, 675,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Claim
Total judgments found: 155
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 5196
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the amount of moral damages awarded to him following the setting aside of a decision that was declared unlawful.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Enfin, si le requérant demande que lui soit allouée «[t]oute autre compensation que le Tribunal jugera opportu[n] d’accorder», une conclusion ainsi formulée est, en tout état de cause, trop vague pour pouvoir être jugée recevable (voir, dans le même sens, les jugements 4994, au considérant 18, 4796, au considérant 16, et 4719, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4719, 4796, 4994
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements;
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.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
«En ce qui concerne la première demande, tendant à ce que la défenderesse assure «une transparence complète sur la restitution des sommes perçues», une conclusion ainsi formulée est, en tout état de cause, trop vague pour pouvoir être jugée recevable (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4994, au considérant 18, 4796, au considérant 16, 4719, au considérant 7, ou 4602, au considérant 8).»
«[L]e Tribunal estime que la demande est, en conséquence, irrecevable à un double titre: d’une part, parce qu’elle revêt un caractère purement hypothétique et, d’autre part, parce qu’elle est prématurée eu égard à l’engagement pris par l’Organisation.»
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4602, 4719, 4796, 4994
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements;
Judgment 5104
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject as time-barred her compensation claim for illness attributable to the performance of official duties.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]n his decision of 9 March 2022, the Director-General accepted the unanimous recommendation made by the JAAB in its report […] and, therefore, the views of the JAAB should have been considered by the Compensation Committee in its new consideration of the complainant’s compensation claim, but they were not. The JAAB’s detailed reasoning on what was the starting point for calculating the six-month time limit for the submission of her compensation claim spanned a little over three pages of factual and legal analysis. It culminated with a conclusion that a diagnosis made […] in December 2019 could serve as a starting point for the timeframe for the complainant filing a compensation claim. Given the history of the matter, it was clearly incumbent on the majority of the members of the Compensation Committee to explain why they did not accept, and, in fact, rejected, the JAAB’s analysis or, at least, why it was open to them to draw the unfavourable inference they did, in the face of the JAAB’s analysis.
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; compensation; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; illness; internal appeals body; recommendation; service-incurred; time limit;
Judgment 5072
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a Board of Appeal member, challenges the fact that he did not receive an automatic salary advancement following the repeal of the transitional provisions contained in decision CA/D 4/15.
Considerations 23-24
Extract:
The Tribunal has previously ruled, in other cases where the Conflict Resolution Unit refused, similarly, to register a request for review, that, as such a refusal necessarily entails the rejection of the request, it constitutes a decision in itself, against which the employee concerned should bring an internal appeal before the Appeals Committee if she or he wishes to pursue the dispute (see Judgments 4319, consideration 6, and 4269, considerations 6 and 7). In the present case, the complainant did indeed submit an internal appeal against the refusal to register his request for review and that appeal was duly examined by the Committee. However, the fact remains that the failure by the competent authority to process the complainant’s request meant that he was denied the benefit of the review procedure, which unlawfully breached his right of appeal.
In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considers that it would be inappropriate to set aside the impugned decision on this sole ground but, in accordance with Article VIII of its Statute, will instead order financial compensation for the moral injury caused to the complainant by this breach of his right of appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4269, 4319
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; internal appeal; moral injury;
Judgment 5045
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 19
Extract:
[The complainant] seeks an order that benefits for all staff be reinstated and that damages be granted to them. It is not open to him to seek relief beyond enforcing his rights.
Keywords:
claim; third party;
Judgment 5044
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[The complainant] seeks an order that benefits for all staff be reinstated and, in a subsequent claim, that all current and former staff members be provided 'full recompense'. It is not open to him to seek relief beyond enforcing his rights.
Keywords:
claim; third party;
Judgment 5043
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 20
Extract:
The complainant seeks an order reinstating all benefits and entitlements which have been withheld, delayed or otherwise diminished to all staff, whether or not they have appealed. However, it is not open to him to seek relief beyond enforcing his rights. This claim is rejected.
Keywords:
claim; third party;
Judgment 5009
140th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “Effective performance” rating contained in her appraisal report covering the period from June 2017 to May 2018, as well as a comment made in such report about her having been on extended leave and having worked part-time during the appraisal period.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Even if there is an arguable flaw in an evaluation report, there are limits on what powers the Tribunal might exercise if established. This limitation was adverted to in Judgment 4894, consideration 6: '[T]he additional relief sought by the complainant [...] includes that the text in his staff report for 2009 be amended by order of the Tribunal. But it has long been acknowledged that a request such as this would involve an impermissible determination by the Tribunal of what the appraisal should be (see, recently, Judgment 4786, consideration 1)'.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4786, 4894
Keywords:
claim; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4994
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was called to give evidence as part of an investigation into allegations of harassment, challenges the refusal to allow him to be accompanied by a colleague at his interview.
Consideration 18
Extract:
Enfin, si le requérant demande que lui soit allouée «toute autre réparation qui semblera[it] équitable au Tribunal», une conclusion ainsi formulée est, en tout état de cause, trop vague pour pouvoir être jugée recevable (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4796, au considérant 16, 4719, au considérant 7, ou 4602, au considérant 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4602, 4719, 4796
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements;
Judgment 4954
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for other consequential relief that the Tribunal may determine to be necessary, just, appropriate and equitable is too vague to be receivable (see, for example, Judgment 4719, consideration 7, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4719
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements;
Judgment 4944
139th Session, 2025
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision rejecting her internal appeal in which she contended, among other things, that the investigations conducted and mandated by the World Food Programme into her complaint of rape were ultra vires and that her complaint should instead have been referred to and investigated by national or international judicial authorities.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant’s claim to be awarded such other relief as the Tribunal deems just, necessary, and fair is too vague to be receivable (see, for example, Judgments 4719, consideration 7, and 4602, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4602, 4719
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements;
Judgment 4838
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his claims for material and moral damages in connection with the death of his brother, a former staff member of IOM.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim; complaint dismissed; death; successor;
Judgment 4829
138th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his compensation claim for service-incurred injury and illness as time-barred.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the IAEA, pursuant to its duty of care, ought to have treated the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter as the initiation of a compensation claim for a work-related injury. Therefore, it follows that the complainant’s claim was timely submitted under Appendix D and should be considered by the JABCC.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 12
Extract:
In light of the foregoing, the complainant’s claim for compensation will be remitted to the IAEA for the JABCC to consider whether the complainant’s injury is attributable to the performance of official duties and whether he is entitled to the payment of medical expenses and compensation resulting from such injury pursuant to Appendix D.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; claim; compensation; illness; injury; remand; service-incurred;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he approach taken by the Director General in the impugned decision is problematic.
First, he erred in treating the complainant’s letter of 5 December 2019 as a letter merely “addressing return-to-work issues”. On the contrary, it is clear that in his 5 December 2019 letter the complainant intended to report his work-related accident to the IAEA and he did so about two months after the reported accident. This was within the four-month applicable time limit. In that letter, the complainant wrote: “Please accept this letter as written notice that on 4th of October 2019 I was involved in a work accident in my office”. The complainant also described the circumstances of his accident and the details of his treatment, and indicated that he might need further sick leave in the coming weeks. The letter was accompanied by a medical report of his status, diagnosis, and treatment. Interpreting a letter primarily focused on reporting a work-related accident, including by describing the circumstances thereof and attaching a medical report, solely as a sick leave request or a letter addressing return-to-work issues, overlooked its potential relevance to a compensation claim.
Second, according to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, part of an organisation’s duty of care towards its staff is to provide procedural guidance to a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right insofar as that may allow them to take effective action. If there is still time, it must inform a staff member of the available means of redress (see Judgment 4369, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein). In addition, if a member of staff pursues a grievance by an incorrect procedure, but there is another procedure which would be appropriate, the organisation is under a duty to advise the staff member to follow the appropriate procedure (see Judgment 4006, consideration 13). Accordingly, an international organisation is under an obligation to clearly communicate to its staff members the appropriate procedures for submitting claims for compensation for service-incurred injuries or illnesses. This obligation is particularly important where procedural rules are unclear and could result in significant adverse consequences for staff members who are genuinely misguided on the procedures they must follow. As previously noted, Appendix D does not explicitly detail the procedural formalities for submitting a compensation claim for service-incurred injury or illness, such as its format or intended recipient. Therefore, the IAEA had a duty to provide procedural guidance to the complainant who was mistaken in the exercise of his right. Rather than penalizing him for procedural non-compliance, which at least in part stemmed from the lack of clarity in its own rules, the IAEA should have guided the complainant to follow the appropriate procedures.
The Tribunal is of the opinion that the VIC Medical Service should have forwarded the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent body within the organisation. The necessity of forwarding to the competent body within the organization appeals addressed to the wrong body is articulated in Judgment 3034, consideration 15, as follows:
“[T]he procedural rules for lodging an internal appeal must not set a trap for staff members who are endeavouring to defend their rights; they must not be construed too pedantically and, if they are broken, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. For that very reason, an official who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. In such circumstances this body must forward the appeal to the competent body within the organisation in order that it may examine it and the person concerned is not deprived of his/her right of appeal (see, in this connection, Judgments 1832, under 6, and 2882, under 6).” (See also Judgment 4140, consideration 6.)
This case law equally applies to the present case concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred injury addressed to the wrong body. The duty to re-direct an incorrectly filed claim for compensation for a work-related injury or illness to the competent body within the organization is an integral part of the duty of care incumbent upon organisations. It is intended to ensure that staff members are not deprived of their right to compensation for service-incurred injury or illness because of procedural missteps which can easily be remedied by re-directing compensation claims to the competent authority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3034, 4006, 4369
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s claim for moral damages, the IAEA’s failure in its duty to forward the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent authority within the IAEA to be notified of work-related accidents and/or illnesses, has added to the delay in the final settlement of this case, whatever its eventual outcome may be (see Judgment 3674, consideration 10). This alone caused the complainant injury for which he is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; delay; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; moral damages; service-incurred;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim; compensation; complaint allowed; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
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 10
Extract:
In her rejoinder, the complainant submits that the Organization failed to order that she be reimbursed the amount of approximately 19,088 Swiss francs she had voluntarily repaid to the WTO on 13 March 2018 for the spouse allowance, the health insurance subsidy for 2015, and the home leave lump sums for 2016, pursuant to the finding of the OIO Report (some of which, she argues, she did not even lawfully owe). This claim seems inconsistent with the complainant’s former conduct, as she voluntarily offered to repay to the WTO the amounts which she had acknowledged were not owed to her. In any event, this is a new claim, submitted for the first time before the Tribunal, and it is, thus, irreceivable, pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.
Keywords:
claim; iloat statute; internal remedies not exhausted;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[A] complainant cannot submit in the rejoinder a claim that was not contained in the complaint (see, for example, Judgments 4504, consideration 5, 4215, consideration 29, and 3086, consideration 3(d)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3086, 4215, 4504
Keywords:
claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4796
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to deduct from the amount of the education allowance paid in respect of his child the remuneration received by the latter during an internship.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant seeks the award of “any other relief which the Tribunal considers just and equitable”, a claim worded in this way is, in any event, too vague to be regarded as receivable (see, for example, Judgments 4719, consideration 7, 4602, consideration 8, and 550, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 550, 4602, 4719
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements;
Judgment 4795
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation report for 2018.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t must be noted from the outset that, although the complainant asks for the Communiqué to be set aside, the claim he presents to that end is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the Communiqué at issue – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Under that same case law, the complainant may, however, challenge the lawfulness of the aforementioned Communiqué 2/17 – as indeed he has done – in support of his claims for the impugned decision and the disputed performance evaluation report, which implement the guidelines contained in the Communiqué, to be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords:
claim; general decision; individual decision; performance report;
Judgment 4769
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Three of the decisions which the complainant challenges as unlawful and seeks to have set aside are general decisions. [...]
However, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s claim for these decisions to be set aside is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the memorandum at issue and the two decisions of 20 September 2019 – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be contested in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords:
claim; general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 4768
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 8
Extract:
In respect of the complainant’s submission in [...] his rejoinder that compliance by Eurocontrol with its obligations “should take the form of the assignment of the post [in question]”, it must be noted that this request is not one of the claims formally set out by the complainant in his submissions.
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that, as the complainant argues in his submissions, the delay of 23 months in reaching a decision on his internal complaint was clearly excessive and it was particularly unreasonable that the Director General did not take a decision until more than 10 months after the Joint Committee for Disputes had issued its opinion. As the complainant has not submitted any claim for damages under this head, no specific order will be made. However, the Tribunal wishes to point out to Eurocontrol that such a delay, which it does not convincingly justify in its submissions, is unacceptable.
Keywords:
claim; delay in internal procedure; formal requirements;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant further requests that the Director General’s internal memorandum of 4 July 2019 be set aside, but that claim is irreceivable. Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a general decision intended to serve as a basis for individual decisions – as is the case of the memorandum at issue – cannot be impugned, save in exceptional cases, and its lawfulness may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see, for example, Judgments 4734, consideration 4, 4572, consideration 3, 4278, consideration 2, 3736, consideration 3, and 3628, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4278, 4572, 4734
Keywords:
claim; general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 4719
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2015.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant’s claim [...] to be awarded such other relief as the Tribunal deems just, fair and equitable is too vague to be receivable (see, for example, Judgments 4602, consideration 8, and 550, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 550, 4602
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements;
Judgment 4563
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to award him an invalidity allowance instead of an invalidity pension.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The range of procedural issues and other pleas raised by the complainant had no material effect on the outcome or are irrelevant. Accordingly, these other immaterial or irrelevant pleas need not be addressed (see Judgment 4487, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4487
Keywords:
claim;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
