Formal requirements (78, 947,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Formal requirements
Total judgments found: 118
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | 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 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 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.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
"[T]he principle of transparency as well as the individual’s right to access personal data mandate that staff members receive full and unfettered access to their medical files and obtain copies upon request (paying the associated costs as necessary). The only situation in which this rule does not apply is where specific circumstances temporarily prevent such access. However, a decision to temporarily deny staff members full access to their medical files must be fully justified and reasonable […]. The Tribunal also relevantly stated that in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of staff members to access their own medical files, this right encompasses viewing and obtaining copies of all records and notes in the file, and adding pertinent notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete, and that, so stated, the right to access one’s own medical file gives effect to the organisation’s duty of transparency […]."
"As a rule, access to medical files should be granted also with regard to medical documentation submitted by the staff concerned and, thus, already in possession of the staff member who is requesting access. Indeed, the aim of a request to access a medical file is not only to obtain documentation that the staff member concerned does not have, but also to check that the medical file contains all the relevant documents, including those submitted by the staff concerned."
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; formal requirements; medical records; no provision; organisation's duties; personal file;
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 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 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 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 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 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant’s claim to be awarded such other redress as the Tribunal deems necessary, just and fair should be rejected as it is too vague to be receivable (see, for example, Judgment 4602, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4602
Keywords:
formal requirements;
Judgment 4836
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for several positions.
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant’s claim to be awarded such other redress as the Tribunal deems necessary, just and fair should be rejected as it is too vague to be receivable (see, for example, Judgment 4602, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4602
Keywords:
formal requirements;
Judgment 4835
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of employment that had been extended to him, on the basis that he had been disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s claim to be awarded such other redress as the Tribunal deems necessary, just and fair should be rejected as it is too vague to be receivable (see, for example, Judgment 4602, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4602
Keywords:
formal requirements;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant’s claim to be awarded such other redress as the Tribunal deems necessary, just and fair should be rejected as it is too vague to be receivable (see, for example, Judgment 4602, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4602
Keywords:
formal requirements;
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 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;
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 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 4243
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of her complaint of discrimination and harassment.
Consideration 2
Extract:
WIPO challenges the receivability of the complaint on the grounds that it is directed against the Director General’s decision of 19 January 2016 and not against the Assistant Director General’s decision of 15 April 2016, which was the final decision. It is correct that in the complaint form the complainant only mentioned the Director General’s decision of 19 January 2016, but in her written submissions she also seeks the setting aside of the Assistant Director General’s decision of 15 April 2016.
The challenge to the receivability of the complaint therefore fails.
Keywords:
claim; formal requirements; receivability of the complaint;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
