New claim (19, 647,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: New claim
Total judgments found: 119
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 5182
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend him from service in the context of a disciplinary procedure.
Consideration 3
Extract:
“[N]ot all claims for moral damages can be characterised as claims for consequential relief that can be granted in all circumstances. Where a claim for moral damages rests on a new factual or legal grievance not raised internally (for example, harassment or retaliation), it is irreceivable (see, for example, Judgment 4997, consideration 7, in fine). The Tribunal’s case law draws a distinction between ancillary moral damage claims, those that flow directly from the contested decision or from procedural defects in the internal proceedings, and claims for moral damages resting on a fresh allegation, whereby a complainant seeks to litigate a new and distinct grievance, while the underlying factual basis of the claim had never been submitted to the internal appeal body.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4997
Keywords:
moral damages; new claim;
Judgment 5180
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s invalidity reforms.
Consideration 23
Extract:
“In addition to being irreceivable as new claims filed for the first time in his further submissions since the complainant could, and ought to, have submitted them in his complaint (see Judgments 4752, consideration 13, and 4396, consideration 7) – these claims are also unfounded in light of the outcome of the case on the main claims. They are, therefore, rejected.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396, 4752
Keywords:
new claim;
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 12
Extract:
"These claims, in addition to being irreceivable as new claims filed for the first time in his further submissions, whereas the complainant could and should have submitted them in his initial complaint […], must be rejected in light of the outcome of the case on the main claims."
Keywords:
further submissions; new claim;
Judgment 5170
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s refusal to grant him, for the year 2021, the two days’ compensatory special leave to which he considers he is entitled as an emergency response officer (volunteer firefighter).
Consideration 4
Extract:
« Dans sa réplique, le requérant demande également que l’Agence soit condamnée à lui verser des dommages-intérêts exemplaires et punitifs. Mais le rejet des conclusions à fin d’octroi de dommages-intérêts ordinaires exclut, a fortiori, que soient prononcées de telles condamnations. Au surplus, il convient de rappeler qu’un requérant n’est pas recevable à formuler de nouvelles conclusions dans le cadre de sa réplique […]. »
Keywords:
exemplary damages; new claim; punitive damages; rejoinder;
Judgment 5085
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim for moral damages following the quashing of an administrative decision by the Tribunal.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]s the complainant did not raise the claim of harassment in his internal appeal, his claim for moral damages based on these allegations is irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of remedies and will not be considered.
Keywords:
new claim;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for punitive damages, raised for the first time in the complainant’s rejoinder, is irreceivable. The Tribunal has consistently held, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, raise new claims not contained in her or his original complaint (see, for example, Judgment 3034, consideration 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3034
Keywords:
new claim; surrejoinder;
Judgment 5063
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the amounts paid to them by way of moral damages and costs following an internal appeal that they filed as staff representatives.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he [Organisation] questions the receivability of [the complainant's] claims for moral damages, noting that he does not explain why the total amount claimed before the Tribunal has increased in relation to the amount claimed in his internal appeal. […] In the present case, however, the increase in the amount of moral damages claimed is entirely based on the excessive duration of the internal appeal proceedings, which plainly could not be measured at the time when the appeal was filed. This objection to receivability is therefore unfounded.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; new claim;
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 15
Extract:
[U]n requérant n’est pas recevable à formuler une nouvelle conclusion dans le cadre de sa réplique (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4761, au considérant 10, ou 4396, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396, 4761
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 5042
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 17
Extract:
In her 18 November 2024 comments, the complainant asks for taxation support in relation to her claim for repatriation grant. This is a new claim, which has not been made previously and is thus irreceivable (see Judgments 4665, consideration 4, 4487, consideration 15, and 4396, consideration 7). In any event and having regard to the unusual history of this matter, even if the question of taxation support can be raised now, the complainant offers no arguments as to what form of taxation support she may have been entitled to and, more importantly, no arguments identifying the legal foundation for any such entitlement which might be enforceable in proceedings before this Tribunal. This claim is rejected as irreceivable and on the merits.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396, 4487, 4665
Keywords:
new claim; tax;
Judgment 5003
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with notice.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has established that the claims of a complainant must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process; it has however recognized that a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas before the Tribunal even if those pleas were not placed before the relevant internal appeal body (see, for example, Judgments 4901, consideration 4, 4547, consideration 11, 4522, consideration 3, and 3686, consideration 22). […] Although, [...] new claims before the Tribunal are, as a rule, irreceivable, the case law allows exceptions to this rule, with regard to ancillary claims, such as claims for costs incurred during the proceedings before the Tribunal (see Judgments 4020, consideration 4, 3945, consideration 5, 3421, consideration 2, 2457, consideration 4, and 475, consideration 1), claims for damages resulting directly from the internal appeal proceedings themselves, for example for the delay in the internal appeal process (see Judgment 4074, consideration 17), and possibly claims for moral damages (see Judgments 4020, consideration 4, and 3080, consideration 25). In the present case, the claim about the placement of the complainant’s record in the United Nations Clear Check screening database concerns a decision which is a direct consequence of the disciplinary decision, and which is not impugned for its own flaws, but only because it is an ancillary decision directly linked with the main decision. On the material before the Tribunal, it appears, on balance, that the placement decision was not a distinct discretionary decision. In the circumstances of the case, the claim against the placement of the disciplinary decision in the United Nations Clear Check screening database is an ancillary claim, the outcome of which will be determined by the outcome of the main claims. It is obvious that, if the disciplinary decision were to be set aside, the placement of the complainant’s record in that database should also be withdrawn, as a direct effect of the setting aside of the disciplinary decision. Thus, the complainant is entitled to claim such withdrawal in the same complaint filed against the disciplinary decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 475, 2457, 3080, 3421, 3686, 3945, 4020, 4074, 4522, 4547, 4901
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
Judgment 4997
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his internal appeal relating to a letter which he intended to send to the French representative on the Administrative Council of the EPO.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]l ressort du dossier que la demande de réparation du préjudice spécifiquement relatif au harcèlement moral dans lequel s’inscrirait, selon le requérant, l’acte qu’il entend contester, n’avait pas été formulée dans le cadre de son recours interne. Il s’agit ainsi d’une conclusion nouvelle devant le Tribunal, qui, comme telle, ne satisfait pas à l’exigence d’épuisement des voies de recours interne posée par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut de celui-ci.
Keywords:
new claim;
Judgment 4996
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who filed a harassment complaint, challenges the decision to close the investigative process at the preliminary evaluation stage.
Consideration 20
Extract:
Le Tribunal observe au surplus que, comme le fait valoir à juste titre la défenderesse, certaines de ces conclusions sont irrecevables en ce qu’elles tendent à la formulation d’injonctions qu’il n’aurait pas compétence pour prononcer, ou en ce qu’elles ont été présentées pour la première fois devant lui en méconnaissance de l’exigence d’épuisement des voies de recours interne posée par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, de son Statut.
Keywords:
injunction; new claim;
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 16
Extract:
[C]omme le soutient à juste titre la défenderesse, ces conclusions n’avaient pas été formulées par le requérant, quant à elles, dans le cadre de son recours interne. Si l’intéressé fait certes valoir qu’il avait antérieurement présenté, à l’occasion de la demande de réexamen de la décision contestée, des conclusions similaires, le Tribunal constate que celles-ci n’avaient pas alors été définies de la même façon que dans la requête. De surcroît, il appartenait au requérant, en toute hypothèse, d’indiquer dans son recours les réparations qu’il entendait demander à ce stade de la procédure, ainsi que le requiert le paragraphe 3 de l’article 4 du Règlement d’application des articles 106 à 113 du Statut des fonctionnaires. Dès lors, le Tribunal estime que ces conclusions à fin d’attribution de dommages-intérêts pour tort matériel ne satisfont pas à l’exigence d’épuisement des voies de recours interne posée par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, de son Statut et sont, par suite, irrecevables de ce chef.
Keywords:
new claim;
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 9
Extract:
[A]s the complainant did not raise the issue of institutional harassment in his request for review dated 14 September 2020, his claim for institutional harassment is a new claim and is therefore irreceivable (see, for example, Judgment 4703, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4703
Keywords:
institutional harassment; new claim;
Judgment 4901
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his performance evaluation for 2018 rating such performance as “fair”.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[W]hile it is true that the Tribunal’s case law establishes that the claims of a complainant must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal process, it has however recognized that a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas (see Judgments 4547, consideration 11, and 4522, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4522, 4547
Keywords:
new claim; new plea;
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 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, it is well established that a complainant’s request must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process (see, for example, Judgments 4522, consideration 3, 4066, consideration 4, and 4009, considerations 10 and 14). In the present case, the complainant made the claim for reinstatement for the first time before the Tribunal […]. This new claim, which was not raised in the internal proceedings, is irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress according to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4009, 4066, 4522
Keywords:
new claim;
Judgment 4827
138th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay him a repatriation grant upon his separation from service.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s new claim in the rejoinder for breach of confidentiality is also dismissed, as a complainant may not enter new claims not contained in the original complaint (see, for example, Judgment 4396, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396
Keywords:
new claim;
Judgment 4823
138th Session, 2024
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him a contract of indefinite duration.
Consideration 29
Extract:
The only time the complainant, and only indirectly, alluded to this “failure to abide by its obligation to actively contribute to an effort towards finding another position within ESO” was in his rejoinder. But this claim was never made or raised before by the complainant, and the latter could not add a new claim of this nature in the context or at the stage of his rejoinder (see, for example, Judgment 4761, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4761
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4818
138th Session, 2024
Green Climate Fund
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision denying her and her dependents an individual medical insurance plan following her separation from service.
Consideration 12
Extract:
As for the complainant’s claim for moral damages, the organisation correctly points out that the complainant increased her claim from 15,000 United States dollars to 50,000 euros, without any explanation or basis for such increase. In the absence of any justification for the increase, the Tribunal will not consider any compensation beyond the 15,000 United States dollars originally claimed in the internal appeal process (see, for example, Judgments 4095, consideration 3, and 3419, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3419, 4095
Keywords:
moral injury; new claim;
Judgment 4761
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s refusal to recognise that the illness from which he claims to suffer is service-induced.
Consideration 10
Extract:
In his rejoinder, the complainant asks for the case to be sent back to the Organization so that the internal complaints procedure for harassment can be initiated.
However, the Tribunal considers that this constitutes a new claim, which a complainant is not permitted to enter in her or his rejoinder (see, in particular, Judgments 4396, consideration 7, 4092, consideration 10, and 3086, consideration 3(d)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3086, 4092, 4396
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Judgment 4752
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a special post allowance.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant asks for the “[a]ward of material and moral damages for the unlawful abolishment of [her] position […]”. This issue is a new claim, not raised in the internal proceedings leading to the impugned decision, and, thus, is irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress (see Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal).
Keywords:
new claim;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he complainant asks for an “[a]ward of material and moral damages for the undue delay of the [Joint Appeals Board] process”. This claim is irreceivable since it is contained only in the complainant’s rejoinder (see, for example, Judgment 4396, consideration 7), whilst the complainant could, and should, have submitted it in her complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396
Keywords:
new claim; rejoinder;
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he complainant claims the award of material and moral damages for “the undue delay of the payment of overtime”. This issue is a new claim, not raised in the internal proceedings leading to the impugned decision, and, thus, is irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress (see […] Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal).
Keywords:
new claim;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
