Complaint (3, 4, 18, 19, 647, 20, 92, 675, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 669, 680, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 433, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 781, 109, 738, 769, 118, 662, 737, 739, 768, 770, 838, 877,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Complaint
Total judgments found: 311
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
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 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal also recalls that it has stated on a number of occasions, and recently with increasing frequency, that it is inappropriate to effectively incorporate by reference into the pleas before the Tribunal arguments, contentions and pleas found in other documents, often a document created for the purposes of internal review and appeal (see Judgment 3920, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal is entitled to disregard those contentions and pleas (see Judgment 4715, consideration 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3920, 4715
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements;
Judgment 5147
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of his post and the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
“[I]t is inappropriate to incorporate by reference, into the pleas before it, arguments, contentions and pleas from other documents, often a document created for the purposes of internal review and appeal, and that the Tribunal may disregard those contentions and pleas (see, for example, Judgments 4715, consideration 12, and 3920, consideration 5). Crucially, the rationale underlying this case law is that complainants before the Tribunal must specify on which grounds they challenge the impugned decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal will disregard the arguments contained in the […] appeal, to which the complainant merely refers, and deal with the pleas specifically formulated in the complainant’s brief before it.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3920, 4715
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements;
Judgment 5119
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ITU’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with immediate effect.
Consideration 35
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal recalled that ‘[i]t should be borne in mind that this practice of referring to the arguments that appear in a document annexed to the complaint, rather than setting them out in the complaint itself as required by Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, is not admissible […]’. Similarly, in Judgment 4715, consideration 12, it remarked that ‘[t]he Tribunal has stated on a number of occasions, and recently with increasing frequency, that it is inappropriate to effectively incorporate by reference into the pleas before the Tribunal arguments, contentions and pleas found in other documents, often a document created for the purposes of internal review and appeal […]. The Tribunal would be entitled to disregard those contentions and pleas.’.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4715
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements;
Judgment 5109
141st Session, 2026
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims compensation for moral injury due to the harassment he suffered by his supervisor.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The events which led to the complainant lodging a formal complaint of harassment with OIOS in late April 2021 (and in respect of which he had taken notes) began in October 2020. That is five years ago. It would be open to the Tribunal to remit the matter to the IAEA to enable the Director General to consider whether he should exercise his discretionary power to award moral damages in favour of the complainant. However, that would be likely to delay the resolution of the matter for several, if not many, months. Accordingly, the Tribunal will award moral damages itself, as it is empowered to do (see, for example, Judgment 4808, considerations 13 to 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4808
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint; harassment; moral damages; moral injury; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5105
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension from duty pending investigation into alleged misconduct in connection with outside activities, and his subsequent discharge for misconduct in connection with the publication of a defamatory blog.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that a complainant alleging that an administrative decision constitutes an act of harassment bears the burden of proof: an allegation of harassment has to be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it (see Judgments 4746, consideration 12, and 4241, consideration 9). The Tribunal has also held that conduct will not be characterized as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question (see Judgment 2370, consideration 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 4241, 4746
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint; evidence; harassment;
Judgment 5032
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de limiter dans le temps le remboursement de sommes déduites du montant des allocations familiales versées par l’Organisation au titre de sommes perçues d’un régime de protection sociale national.
Considerations 10 and 15
Extract:
[L]e fait qu’un requérant n’ait découvert l’illégalité dont il entend se prévaloir qu’après l’expiration du délai de recours n’est pas, en lui-même, de nature à permettre de considérer sa requête comme recevable […]. En outre, la réponse à une demande de clarification d’une décision ne saurait déclencher un nouveau délai de recours pour contester la décision initiale, car reconnaître un tel principe rendrait caduc l’objectif pour lequel un tel délai a été instauré […] . Tel est également le cas dans l’hypothèse d’une réponse à une demande de réexamen formulée après qu’une décision définitive a été prise […].
[…] Il s’ensuit que la requête est irrecevable en ce qu’elle est dirigée contre celle-ci pour non respect de l’exigence d’épuisement des voies de recours interne posée par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal. En effet, il résulte de la jurisprudence du Tribunal que, pour qu’une requête soit recevable au regard de cette disposition, le requérant doit non seulement avoir usé des voies de recours interne, mais doit en outre l’avoir fait en respectant les conditions et délais prescrits par les textes applicables au sein de l’organisation concernée […].
Keywords:
complaint; confirmatory decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new fact; new time limit; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;
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 5
Extract:
[I]l convient de rappeler que le procédé consistant […] à renvoyer l’exposé d’une argumentation à un document joint à la requête, au lieu de faire figurer celle-ci dans la requête elle-même, comme l’exige l’article 6, paragraphe 1 b), du Règlement du Tribunal, n’est pas admissible (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4051, au considérant 3, 3692, au considérant 4, ou 3434, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3434, 3692, 4051
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements;
Judgment 4995
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the terms on which he was reimbursed for his disabled child’s educational costs.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[I]l convient de rappeler que le procédé consistant ainsi à renvoyer l’exposé d’une argumentation à un document joint à la requête, au lieu de faire figurer celle-ci dans la requête elle-même, comme l’exige l’article 6, paragraphe 1 b), du Règlement du Tribunal, n’est pas admissible (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4051, au considérant 3, 3692, au considérant 4, ou 3434, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3434, 3692, 4051
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements;
Judgment 4886
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the deferral of his application for clearance to carry a service weapon.
Considerations 3-6
Extract:
It is settled case law that, “[a]s a matter of law, a claim is moot when there is no longer a live controversy”, bearing in mind that “[w]hether or not there is a live controversy is a matter to be determined by the Tribunal” (see Judgments 4060, consideration 3, 3583, consideration 2, and 2856, consideration 5). This case law cannot be construed to mean that the Tribunal must confine itself to determining whether there is still disagreement between the parties as to the claim in question – which, unless the complainant withdraws the complaint or the claim supporting it, must normally be the case. It is of course for the Tribunal to assess in the specific case, over and above that determination, whether the dispute objectively retains a reason for existence.
In the present case, although the complainant persists in challenging the decision refusing to grant him the clearance to carry a weapon that he had requested in the context of the reform that was initially undertaken, the Tribunal considers that the dispute arising from that decision has in fact been rendered moot by the abandonment of that reform.
In this respect, the Tribunal notes that, even if the process of arming security officers was theoretically only suspended and not stopped, its implementation simply ceased following the Director-General’s decision to that effect and, in view of the evidence on file, has never been resumed since. Moreover, given the age of the clearances issued to some security officers before the process was suspended, it is hardly conceivable that they could still be considered valid should that process be restarted in the future.
In addition, it should be noted that the contested decision of 5 February 2018 was merely a deferral of the complainant’s application for clearance, and not a final rejection of it, as was subsequently confirmed by the Chief of the Security and Safety Section in his email of 11 May 2018, stating that the complainant’s file would not be submitted to the French authorities “as matters stand”.
It follows from these findings that the contested decision had no tangible bearing on the complainant’s situation, since the security officers who were cleared in 2018 were not actually equipped with a firearm. Furthermore, setting aside that decision would not have any practical effect, since it would not allow the complainant to be armed.
Lastly, the circumstance referred to by the complainant in his written submissions that the decision to defer his application for clearance was not formally withdrawn by the Organization is not determinative in this case, since that decision’s lack of effect has had the same practical consequences as a withdrawal and, as stated above, the question here is to determine whether the challenge to that decision objectively retains a reason for existence in this particular case.
Consequently, the Tribunal considers that the complainant’s claim for the setting aside of the deferral of his application for clearance must be regarded as moot.
The dispute may nevertheless have retained a purpose insofar as it concerns the award of moral damages, which the complainant claims on account of the alleged unlawfulness of the impugned decision.
However, the file shows that this is not the case.
Under the Tribunal’s case law, an unlawful decision does not entitle the staff member concerned to moral damages unless that decision has caused her or him more severe injury than that resulting from the unlawfulness itself (see, in particular, Judgments 4156, consideration 5, and 1380, consideration 11).
In the present case, and bearing in mind that the contested decision had no tangible effect, the Tribunal considers that any flaws tainting that decision are not, in any event, such as to have caused the complainant such particular injury.
The position would only be different if the complainant were to establish that the deferral of his application for clearance had been motivated, as he submits, by malicious bias against him that formed part of a pattern of moral harassment and retaliatory measures of which he accuses his supervisors. However, it should be noted that the complainant’s allegations in this regard were the subject of a request for an investigation – which should be considered as a harassment complaint – which he had submitted, by a memorandum dated 16 February 2018, in particular to the Ethics Adviser. The preliminary assessment of the merits of that complaint led to it being closed, in accordance with the recommendation of the Ethics Office, by a decision of the Director-General of 14 November 2018.
Although it is true that the complainant challenged that decision in the internal appeals procedure, the Director-General did not take a final decision on his appeal to the Appeals Board on this matter (nor on the appeals concerning other harassment complaints that he had filed) until 24 June 2022, that is after he had filed the present complaint. This complaint is thus irreceivable insofar as it seeks to criticise that decision to close his harassment complaint, because the complainant failed to comply with the requirement to exhaust internal means of redress set out in Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. Moreover, in these circumstances, it cannot be found, in the examination of the present case, that the malicious bias alleged by the complainant has been proven. Although it must be noted that the decision of 24 June 2022 was impugned by the complainant in his third complaint, which will be ruled on at a later date, if the Tribunal were to uphold that complaint, it would not fail to draw all the consequences in terms of compensation for the injury caused by that decision.
Lastly, although the complainant also contends that the decision to defer his application for clearance damaged his reputation and well-being, the Tribunal considers that, in the circumstances of the case, the alleged injury cannot in any event be regarded as substantial. As regards the complainant’s allegation that this decision also damaged his health, this has clearly not been proven, in particular since the only document submitted as evidence on this point, namely a statement of sick leave for 2018, does not establish that the medical problems justifying this leave were specifically linked to the decision in question.
Since the sequence of events recalled above shows that the complaint was already moot when it was filed with the Tribunal on 3 June 2022 – and not that it became moot during these proceedings, in which case the Tribunal would have found that there was no longer any need to rule on it – the complaint must simply be dismissed (see, in particular, Judgment 4635, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2856, 3583, 4060, 4635
Keywords:
cause of action; claim moot; complaint; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that staff members have a right to bring complaints before the Tribunal and there should be no negative implications arising from the exercise of that right.
Keywords:
complaint; judicial review; retaliation;
Judgment 4715
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated on a number of occasions, and recently with increasing frequency, that it is inappropriate to effectively incorporate by reference into the pleas before the Tribunal arguments, contentions and pleas found in other documents, often a document created for the purposes of internal review and appeal (see, for example, Judgment 3920, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal would be entitled to disregard those contentions and pleas.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3920
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements;
Judgment 4483
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 insofar as it abolished the Local Advisory Committees.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant in these proceedings seeks to impugn decision CA/D 2/14 on the basis that a number of anterior procedural and allied irregularities attended the adoption of the decision and impact on its lawfulness. As noted in another judgment adopted at this session concerning another complainant (see Judgment 4482), these arguments are not available to the complainant in the present proceedings. The complainant cannot approbate and reprobate. The invocation of the right to freely associate upon which he wishes to engage the Tribunal’s jurisdiction renders irrelevant the question whether the decision was legally flawed for the other reasons raised by the complainant in this case. Consequently, there is a legal boundary for arguments the complainant may maintain.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4482
Keywords:
complaint; freedom of association; procedural flaw;
Judgment 4277
130th Session, 2020
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.
Consideration 4
Extract:
As regards the claim for the setting aside “more generally” of any other “decision of general application forming the basis” of the impugned decisions, the Tribunal considers that this claim has not been formulated in sufficient detail to allow the challenged decision (or decisions) to be identified.
Keywords:
claim; complaint;
Judgment 4273
130th Session, 2020
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge their classification in the new career structure established following the 2015 five-yearly review.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that these arguments, which do not appear to have been raised in the internal appeal proceedings, are, for the most part, set out in the section of the written submissions presenting the facts of the case. It is not therefore clear whether the complainants wish to raise them as pleas challenging the lawfulness of the general decision of the Council of CERN [...].
Keywords:
claim; complaint; legal brief;
Judgment 4097
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to end her participation in the reassignment process and to terminate her fixed-term appointment further to the abolition of her post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal will only have regard to the pleas contained in the complainant’s brief and rejoinder to the Tribunal and will disregard any pleas incorporated by reference to documents created for the purposes of internal review and appeal (see, for example, Judgment 3951, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3951
Keywords:
complaint; legal brief;
Judgment 4087
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he took part and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[...] It should be recalled that the date of filing of complaints and briefs before the Tribunal is, in principle, the date on which they are sent and not the date on which they are received by the Registry (see, for example, Judgment 3566, consideration 3). The file contains a delivery receipt showing that the reply was deposited at the International Labour Office, secretariat of the International Labour Organization, where the Tribunal is based, on 15 June 2015. As the reply was thus sent on that date at the latest, that is within the prescribed time limit, which expired that evening, the complainant is wrong to claim that it was filed late (see Judgment 3648, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3566, 3648
Keywords:
complaint; date of filing; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 4060
127th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, an ICC Senior Security Officer, contests the decision to temporarily withdraw his authorisation to carry a firearm.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that “[a]s a matter of law, a claim is moot when there is no longer a live controversy. Whether or not there is a live controversy is a matter to be determined by the Tribunal” (see, for example, Judgment 2856, under 5). As a result of the reinstatement of the complainant’s firearm authorisation, the impugned decision is no longer operative and, consequently, the complainant’s claim for the reversal of “the decision to temporarily remove [his] authority to carry a firearm or, in case this cannot be granted, reinstate [his] authorisation to carry a firearm” has been overtaken by the 22 February 2017 decision. The fact that the impugned decision is no longer in force, however, does not resolve the other live issues between the parties concerning the lawfulness of that decision and the consequences of that decision for which the complainant claims moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2856
Keywords:
cause of action; claim moot; complaint; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4051
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal repeats its case law that arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself, supplemented in the rejoinder, if necessary and “that those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, as that would be contrary to the [Tribunal’s] Rules and would render it difficult for the other party to clearly understand the complainant’s pleas [and that] such references are acceptable only as illustrations” (see, for example, Judgment 3434, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3434
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements;
Judgment 3920
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of her post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated on a number of occasions, and recently with increasing frequency, that it is inappropriate to effectively incorporate by reference into the pleas before the Tribunal arguments, contentions and pleas found in other documents, often a document created for the purposes of internal review and appeal (see, for example, Judgments 3842, consideration 4, 3692, consideration 4, and 3434, consideration 5). In this matter, the Tribunal will only have regard to pleas in the complainant’s brief and rejoinder and will disregard any additional, supplementary or other pleas in the Statement of Appeal before the HBA.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3434, 3692, 3842
Keywords:
complaint; formal requirements;
Judgment 3738
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his claim for a termination indemnity.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The author of a complaint is of course free to decide what claims she or he wishes to file with the Tribunal. It is those claims – unless they are amended or counterclaims are filed – that determine the scope of the dispute. Where, as is the case here, they are clearly identified, their terms bind not only the other party but also the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 630, under 2 and 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 630
Keywords:
claim; complaint;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
|
