Receivability of the complaint (76, 77, 78, 947, 88, 89, 656, 743, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 734, 748, 749,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Receivability of the complaint
Total judgments found: 849
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 | next >
Judgment 5203
141st Session, 2026
The Pacific Community
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, on the basis of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Tribunal, challenges what he considers to be an implied decision rejecting his request for further review of 6 April 2024.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure;
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
«L’article VII, paragraphe 3, du Statut du Tribunal prévoit que, «[a]u cas où l’administration, saisie d’une réclamation, n’a pris aucune décision touchant ladite réclamation dans un délai de soixante jours à dater du jour de la notification qui lui en a été faite, l’intéressé est fondé à saisir le Tribunal, et sa requête est recevable au même titre qu’une requête contre une décision définitive. Le délai de quatre-vingt-dix jours [pour saisir le Tribunal] prévu [à l’article VII, paragraphe 2] est compté à dater de l'expiration du délai de soixante jours imparti à l'administration pour prendre une décision.» […] Le Tribunal considère que c’est à tort que le requérant s’appuie sur l’article VII, paragraphe 3, de son Statut. Il ressort clairement des dossiers que l’intéressé a reçu deux réponses de l’administration – les 10 avril et 8 mai 2024 – concernant sa demande de second réexamen du 6 avril 2024, soit dans un délai de soixante jours suivant la notification de cette demande. Ces réponses étaient suffisantes pour faire obstacle à la naissance d’une décision implicite de rejet susceptible d’être attaquée en vertu de l’article VII, paragraphe 3, du Statut du Tribunal (voir le jugement 4911, au considérant 4, et la jurisprudence qui y est citée). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4911
Keywords:
iloat statute; implied decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 6
Extract:
« [Le requérant] s’est mépris dans le calcul des délais [prévus à l’article VII, paragraphe 3, du Statut du Tribunal] en assimilant respectivement le délai de soixante jours à un délai de deux mois et celui de quatre-vingt-dix jours à un délai de trois mois. »
Keywords:
iloat statute; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Consideration 7
Extract:
« [L]e fait que la CPS ait indiqué à l’intéressé le 8 mai 2024 qu’elle lui offrait la possibilité de saisir directement le Tribunal n’était pas de nature à ouvrir un nouveau délai de recours à compter de cette date. »
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; time limit;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
allowance; complaint dismissed; moral injury; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Aucune conclusion tendant à l’octroi de dommages-intérêts pour tort matériel n’ayant été formulée dans le cadre du recours interne, le requérant ne saurait demander pareille réparation devant le Tribunal (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4801, au considérant 6, 4796, au considérant 16, 4752, au considérant 2, 4304, au considérant 8, et 3967, au considérant 5).
Il s’ensuit que la présente requête doit être déclarée irrecevable en ce qu’elle tend à obtenir la réparation du préjudice matériel.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3967, 4304, 4752, 4796, 4801
Keywords:
internal remedies not exhausted; material damages; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5193
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the implied rejection of his request for reimbursement of the costs he incurred in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee.
Consideration 6
Extract:
“As things stood at the date of the filing of this complaint, which is the point in time when receivability is to be assessed (see, in this regard, Judgments 5063, consideration 4, and 1968, consideration 5), the disciplinary proceedings had not been concluded. The complainant should have awaited the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings before claiming his costs. He provides no effective answer to this argument. His complaint is therefore irreceivable and should be dismissed.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1968, 5063
Keywords:
absence of final decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5192
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the implied rejection of his request for an investigation of his complaint of institutional harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; implied decision; institutional harassment; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 3
Extract:
“The complainant characterizes his complaint as a challenge to an implied decision by virtue of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute […] the complainant’s reliance on Article VII, paragraph 3, is misplaced. As the Tribunal recalled, for example, in Judgments 4975, consideration 4, 4271, consideration 3, 4174, consideration 4, and 3975, consideration 5, it is clearly established in the case law that where the Administration takes any action to deal with a claim, this step in itself constitutes a decision upon the claim within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal’s Statute, which forestalls an implied rejection that could be referred to the Tribunal.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3975, 4174, 4271, 4975
Keywords:
implied decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 4
Extract:
“It is true that in some instances where an express decision was adopted during the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Tribunal recharacterized a complaint initially directed against an implied decision of rejection, treating it as a complaint addressed against the express decision adopted in the interim […] However, in the present case, the Tribunal considers that such a recharacterization is not feasible. First, a recharacterization of the original complaint implies it is receivable, which is not the case here. Second, the complainant has acknowledged the existence of the new express decision […] in his rejoinder. Nevertheless, he has insisted that this new decision is not an obstacle to the adjudication of his complaint against the impugned decision and has not specifically challenged the new decision, as he could have done. He does not submit specific pleas against the [express] decision. Unlike […] for example, […] Judgment 4769 […], in the present case, there is no challenge to the new decision. As a result, the Tribunal cannot determine the case on the merits.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4769
Keywords:
express decision; implied decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5191
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the implied rejection of his request for reimbursement of the costs he incurred in the proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
Consideration 5
Extract:
“It has long been the case that when a proceeding initially concerns an implied decision but subsequently an express decision is made, the Tribunal will treat the express decision as the operative decision – provided that the complaint is receivable ab initio – and it will consider that it is appropriate to treat the complaint as being directed against the latter decision, which, in this case, is dated 13 December 2017 (see, for example, Judgments 4820, consideration 6, 4819, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein). While in this case the express decision is wider in scope than the substantive implied decision rejecting the complainant’s request for reimbursement of the costs he incurred […], it nonetheless encompasses the subject matter of the substantive implied decision and resolves the question of costs as claimed. Thus, there is a decision rejecting the complainant’s claim for reimbursement of costs […].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4819, 4820
Keywords:
claim moot; express decision; implied decision; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 6
Extract:
“The Tribunal has accepted that such a claim can endure notwithstanding that the principal claim has become moot. Cases can arise where this residual issue means that the entire matter cannot be said to be moot (see, for example, Judgments 4886, considerations 3 to 6, and 4879, considerations 4 to 7).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4879, 4886
Keywords:
claim moot; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5181
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to withdraw the authorisation to work part-time at 50 per cent, and the consequences on her leave entitlements.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim moot; complaint allowed; part-time employment; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5174
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for recusal of the chairperson of the Appeals Committee.
Consideration 2
Extract:
“Not every decision taken by an international organization constitutes a final decision within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal’s established case law has it that, ordinarily, the decision-making process involves a series of steps or findings that culminate in a final decision. Those intermediate steps or findings do not, in themselves, constitute a decision, much less a final one. While they may be contested as part of a challenge to the final decision, they cannot, on their own, form the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal (see Judgments 4914, consideration 10, 4404, consideration 3, 3961, consideration 4, 3876, consideration 5, and 3700, consideration 14).
More specifically, with regard to the opinions of internal appeal bodies, the Tribunal has consistently held that these are internal steps in the process leading to final decisions and cannot be challenged directly before the Tribunal (see Judgments 4978, consideration 9, 4791, consideration 3, 4721, consideration 7, 4637, consideration 5, 4392, consideration 5, and 2113, consideration 6). The rationale underlying this case law, which characterizes advisory opinions of internal appeal bodies as mere internal steps preceding the adoption of a final decision, applies all the more to decisions rendered during the course of an internal appeal process concerning specific procedural requests from the parties, such as those for hearings, recusal of panel members, or disclosure of documents. Concerning more particularly requests for recusal, the Tribunal has underlined that “a decision concerning the composition of an internal body is not a final administrative decision amenable to review by the Tribunal, but merely a step in the process leading to a final administrative decision. As such, it may be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning the decision to be taken at the end of the internal appeal procedure” (see Judgments 4570, consideration 3, 4297, consideration 7, and 4131, consideration 4). This principle squarely applies in the present case, where the complainant submitted a request for the recusal of the chairperson of the panel in charge of the internal appeal.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2113, 3700, 3876, 3961, 4131, 4297, 4392, 4404, 4570, 4637, 4721, 4791, 4914, 4978
Keywords:
final decision; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 5172
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the extension of his status of serious illness for a period limited to two years.
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
« Le Tribunal relève d’emblée que le présent litige portait à l’origine sur la prolongation du statut de maladie grave du requérant pour une durée qui avait été limitée à deux ans. Selon les écritures, la période de prolongation litigieuse de deux ans du statut de maladie grave de l’intéressé s’est terminée le 30 septembre 2023. Mais le Tribunal observe que, le 11 janvier 2024, soit le jour suivant le dépôt de la présente requête, Eurocontrol a notifié au requérant la décision de prolonger son statut de maladie grave pour une nouvelle période de cinq ans à compter du 1er octobre 2023. Dans ces conditions, le Tribunal estime qu’il n’y a pas lieu de statuer sur les conclusions de l’intéressé tendant à l’annulation de la décision attaquée et de la décision du 28 mars 2023, ainsi qu’à l’octroi d’une prolongation de cinq ans de son statut de maladie grave, lesquelles sont devenues sans objet […] il n’y a lieu pour le Tribunal de se prononcer sur le présent litige qu’en ce qu’il porte sur la demande du requérant tendant à l’octroi d’une somme de 8 000 euros en réparation du préjudice moral prétendument subi. »
Keywords:
claim moot; moral injury; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5169
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reduce her “travelling expenses” pursuant to Office Notice No. 18/20 of 24 July 2020.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Le Tribunal relève [...] qu’une décision définitive a finalement été prise par la chef de l’Unité des ressources humaines et services le 14 décembre 2022 et que cette décision a été produite en cours de procédure, de même que l’avis de la Commission paritaire des litiges y relatif. Dès lors que le Tribunal est en possession d’un dossier complet et que les parties ont eu la possibilité de s’exprimer pleinement dans leurs écritures au sujet de cette décision de rejet explicite de la réclamation de la requérante du 20 octobre 2020, il estime que, conformément à sa jurisprudence, il y a lieu de requalifier la requête comme étant dirigée contre cette dernière décision du 14 décembre 2022 (voir notamment, pour des cas de figure similaires impliquant en particulier Eurocontrol, les jugements 4820, au considérant 6, 4819, au considérant 3, 4769, au considérant 3, et 4768, au considérant 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4768, 4769, 4819, 4820
Keywords:
absence of final decision; express decision; final decision; implied decision; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5167
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the new calculation of his pension entitlements following the implementation of reduction coefficients compensating for salary increases.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5161
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to open disciplinary proceedings against him, as well as the decision to dismiss his harassment complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 2
Extract:
«Le Tribunal a déjà eu l’occasion de relever dans les jugements 4632, au considérant 4, et 3961, au considérant 4, qu’un fonctionnaire n’est pas recevable à contester la procédure disciplinaire conduite à son encontre, y compris l’ouverture de celle-ci, tant qu’une décision n’a pas été rendue à l’issue de cette procédure. Ce n’est qu’une fois que la procédure disciplinaire aura abouti et qu’une décision aura été rendue qu’un fonctionnaire pourra contester cette décision, ainsi que tout autre aspect de la procédure. Il est de jurisprudence constante que des procédures peuvent comprendre plusieurs étapes qui mènent à une décision définitive susceptible d’être attaquée, mais ces étapes ne peuvent elles-mêmes être contestées isolément. Permettre le contraire risquerait d’engendrer d'inutiles recours individuels qui paralyseraient les procédures (voir les jugements 3876, au considérant 5, 3700, au considérant 14, 3512, au considérant 3, et 3433, au considérant 9). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876, 3961, 4632
Keywords:
administrative decision; disciplinary procedure; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
«En ce qui concerne la décision du 8 novembre 2021 de rejeter la seconde plainte pour harcèlement du requérant […] le Tribunal relève que l’intéressé n’a pas contesté cette décision selon les voies de recours prévues par l’article 92 du Statut administratif du personnel permanent de l’Agence Eurocontrol […] l’intéressé a contesté directement cette décision devant le Tribunal. Il en résulte que la requête, en ce qu’elle tend à l’annulation de la décision du 8 novembre 2021, est également irrecevable, en raison de la méconnaissance de l’exigence d’épuisement préalable des voies de recours interne résultant de l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du Statut du Tribunal. »
Keywords:
harassment; internal remedies exhausted; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5155
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to select her for the position of Head of the WHO Office in Dakar, Senegal.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal accepts the complainant’s statement that her allegations of harassment against the Regional Director and the Director for Programme Management serve the purpose of substantiating her claim that these staff members were affected by an apparent conflict of interest when acting in the context of the selection process and are therefore relevant for that purpose in the present complaint. The Tribunal accepts her further statement that she has not requested it to rule on the merits of her harassment complaint, but merely on the issue of conflict of interest in the context of the contested selection process which underlies this complaint. The Tribunal is satisfied that the complainant’s allegations of harassment and related matters are intended to establish an aspect of the unlawfulness of the decision she contests in this complaint and are cast no wider. It is open to her to follow this course (see, for example, Judgment 4149, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4149
Keywords:
conflict of interest; harassment; plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5154
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint must be filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned. The Tribunal has no competence to extend the deadline set forth by the Statute (see, for example, Judgments 4741, consideration 12, 3973, consideration 3 and 3559, consideration 3). […] Accordingly, the complainant’s claim for compensation for the alleged failure to reassign him is irreceivable. However, the complainant may refer to the rotation history as part of the chronology leading to the present case concerning the reclassification of his post (see, for example, Judgments 4100, consideration 3, 3380, consideration 8, and 1982, consideration 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1982, 3380, 3559, 3973, 4100, 4741
Keywords:
receivability of the complaint; time bar;
Judgment 5138
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests Interpol’s disclosure of a medical report in separate proceedings before the Tribunal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5136
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his application for the Voluntary Departure Programme.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Interpol raises a threshold issue about the receivability of the complaint insofar as it might be thought to contain allegations of institutional harassment […]. Regarding the complainant’s allegations of institutional harassment, it is relatively clear that they are intended to establish that some aspect of the decision to deny his application for the Voluntary Departure Programme was unlawful and his claims do not appear to be cast any wider. It is open to the complainant to follow this course (see, for example, Judgments 4149, consideration 7, and 3688, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3688, 4149
Keywords:
institutional harassment; plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5129
141st Session, 2026
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to replace his annual internal tax certificate with a statement indicating the amount of subsistence allowance that he received during the fiscal year 2019.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; tax;
Judgment 5128
141st Session, 2026
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to replace his annual internal tax certificate with a statement indicating the amount of subsistence allowance that he received during the fiscal year 2019.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; tax;
Judgment 5127
141st Session, 2026
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to replace his annual internal tax certificate with a statement indicating the amount of subsistence allowance that he received during the fiscal year 2019.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; tax;
Judgment 5126
141st Session, 2026
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to replace his annual internal tax certificate with a statement indicating the amount of subsistence allowance that he received during the fiscal year 2019.
Consideration 10
Extract:
“The complainant, at the time he filed his complaint, did not have a cause of action and, accordingly, his complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.”
Keywords:
cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; tax;
Judgment 5125
141st Session, 2026
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a retiree from UNESCO since 31 March 1998, challenges a decision of 24 January 2024, rejecting his request of 6 December 2023 for an administrative review relating to the disclosure of a document relating to the management of the Organization’s Medical Benefits Fund.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; summary procedure; time limit;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 | next >
|
