ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations

Site Map \| Contact	français

	> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

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: 303

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >

Judgment 4886

138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: Le requ�rant conteste l�ajournement de sa demande d�habilitation au port d�une arme de service.

Considerations 3-6

Extract:

Il est de jurisprudence bien �tablie que, �[e]n droit, une demande est sans objet lorsqu�il n�y a plus de controverse�, sachant que �c�est au Tribunal qu�il appartient de trancher la question de savoir s�il y a ou non controverse� (voir les jugements 4060, au consid�rant 3, 3583, au consid�rant 2, et 2856, au consid�rant 5). Cette jurisprudence ne saurait se comprendre comme signifiant que le Tribunal doive se borner � constater s�il subsiste un d�saccord entre les parties quant � la demande en question � ce qui, en l�absence de d�sistement du requ�rant ou de retrait par celui-ci de la conclusion se rapportant � cette demande, est en principe n�cessairement le cas. Il incombe bien entendu au Tribunal d�appr�cier in concreto, au-del� de ce constat, si le litige soulev� � ce sujet conserve objectivement une raison d��tre.
Or, en l�esp�ce, si le requ�rant persiste certes � contester la d�cision ayant refus� de lui attribuer l�habilitation au port d�arme qu�il avait sollicit�e dans le cadre de la r�forme initialement engag�e, le Tribunal estime que le litige n� de cette d�cision a en r�alit� perdu son objet du fait de l�abandon de cette r�forme.
� cet �gard, le Tribunal rel�ve que, m�me si le processus d�armement des agents de s�ret� n�a �t�, en th�orie, que suspendu et non pas interrompu, sa mise en �uvre a purement et simplement cess� � la suite de la d�cision en ce sens prise par la Directrice g�n�rale et n�a, au vu du dossier, jamais repris depuis lors. Au demeurant, compte tenu de l�anciennet� des habilitations qui avaient �t� d�livr�es � certains agents de s�ret� avant la suspension du processus, il n�appara�t gu�re concevable que, si ce dernier venait � �tre r�activ� � l�avenir, celles-ci puissent �tre consid�r�es comme ayant conserv� leur validit�.
Au surplus, il convient de noter que la d�cision contest�e du 5 f�vrier 2018 �tait un simple ajournement de la demande d�habilitation du requ�rant, et non un rejet d�finitif de celle-ci, ainsi que l�a d�ailleurs ult�rieurement confirm� le chef de la Section de la s�curit� et de la s�ret� en indiquant, dans son courriel du 11 mai 2018, que le dossier de l�int�ress� ne serait pas pr�sent� aux autorit�s fran�aises �dans l��tat actuel des choses�.
Il r�sulte de ces constatations que la d�cision contest�e n�a eu aucun effet concret sur la situation du requ�rant, puisque les agents de s�ret� auxquels avait �t� d�livr�e une habilitation en 2018 n�ont, en pratique, pas non plus �t� �quip�s d�une arme � feu. En outre, l��ventuelle annulation de cette d�cision n�aurait pas davantage d�effet concret, d�s lors que cette annulation ne permettrait pas � l�int�ress� d��tre dot� d�une telle arme.
Enfin, la circonstance, mise en avant par le requ�rant dans ses �critures, que la d�cision d�ajournement de sa demande d�habilitation n�ait pas �t� formellement retir�e par l�Organisation n�est pas d�terminante, en l�occurrence, �tant donn� que l�absence d�effet de cette d�cision a eu les m�mes cons�quences pratiques qu�un tel retrait et que, comme il a �t� dit plus haut, il s�agit ici d�appr�cier in concreto si la contestation de cette d�cision conserve objectivement une raison d��tre. D�s lors, le Tribunal estime que les conclusions du requ�rant tendant � l�annulation de l�ajournement de sa demande d�habilitation doivent �tre regard�es comme d�pourvues d�objet.
Le litige pourrait certes avoir n�anmoins conserv� un objet en tant qu�il porte sur l�attribution de dommages-int�r�ts pour tort moral que le requ�rant r�clame � raison de l�ill�galit� all�gu�e de la d�cision attaqu�e.
Mais il ressort du dossier que tel n�est pas le cas. [�]
D�s lors qu�il ressort de la chronologie des faits ci-dessus rappel�e que la requ�te �tait sans objet d�s son introduction devant le Tribunal, le 3 juin 2022 � et non qu�elle aurait perdu son objet au cours de la proc�dure juridictionnelle elle-m�me, auquel cas il e�t appartenu au Tribunal de constater qu�il n�y avait plus lieu d�y statuer �, celle-ci ne peut �tre que purement et simplement rejet�e (voir notamment le jugement 4635, au consid�rant 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;
Judgment 3616

121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract and the refusal to grant her a termination indemnity.

Consideration 1

Extract:

First the EPO questions the receivability of the complaint. It holds that the complainant merely outlines the facts contained in her submissions to the IAC and does not enter any explicit plea.
This criticism will not be accepted. While the arguments of fact and of law of the complainant, who is not assisted by a representative, are rather succinct, they are sufficient to enable the Tribunal and the other party to apprehend with sufficient ease and clarity the complainant�s pleas (see Judgment 2264, under 3(e)), which culminate in the claim that the impugned decision should be set aside and that various indemnities should be paid.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264

Keywords:

complaint; grounds;
Judgment 3434

119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the EPO had correctly concluded that the complainant was not entitled to the reimbursement he claimed for the school fees of his children.

Consideration 5

Extract:

[I]t is observed that the submissions that are contained in the brief supporting the complaint refer in part to explanations and submissions which were provided in other documents. On previous occasions, the Tribunal drew attention to Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal, which states that arguments of fact and law must appear in the complaint itself, supplemented in the rejoinder if necessary. It was stated in Judgment 2264, under 3(e), for example, that those arguments may not consist of a mere reference to other documents, as that would be contrary to the Rules and would render it difficult for the other party to clearly understand the complainant�s pleas. Such references are acceptable only as illustrations. This is particularly so where, as in the present case, the annexes are bulky but are not helpfully demarcated to facilitate identification.

Reference(s)

ILOAT reference: Article 6(1)(b) of the Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2264

Keywords:

complaint; judicial review; omission to rule on a plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3432

119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that the EPO breached its duty of care towards him and successfully impugns the decision to award him a compensation which he considers inadequate.

Consideration 3

Extract:

The complainant�s brief (without annexures) in the proceedings before the Tribunal comprises three pages. It is, at times, expressed in inappropriately colourful language. The brief effectively adopts the documented argument of the complainant in the internal appeal (a practice the Tribunal does not approve of) [...].

Keywords:

complaint; formal requirements; procedure before the tribunal; submissions;
Judgment 3279

116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Summary: The complaints regarding the classification of the complainants� duties following an administrative reform were dismissed by the Tribunal.

Consideration 11

Extract:

"The Tribunal notes that consistent case law states that staff members are not entitled to promotions, as promotions are discretionary decisions (see Judgments 263, under 2, 304, under 1, 940, under 9, 1016, under 3, 1025, under 4, 1207, under 8, 1670, under 14, 2060, under 4, 2835, under 5, and 2944, under 22). In the present case, the decision was made not to hold a promotion round for 2010 due to the budgetary constraints. The Board proposed the relaunch of the promotion exercises in 2011, as mentioned above. Considering Eurocontrol�s intention to hold a promotion round for 2011 subject to the availability of budgetary funds, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the lack of a 2010 promotion round is not unlawful [...]."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 263, 304, 940, 1016, 1025, 1207, 1670, 2060, 2835, 2944

Keywords:

case law; claim; complaint; decision; discretion; joinder; judicial review; promotion; submissions;
Judgment 3115

113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Consideration 3

Extract:

The complainant alleges that senior officials misappropriated funds to the detriment of poor countries. "However, in raising that allegation before the Tribunal, she overlooks the fact that the competence of the Tribunal is clearly and exhaustively defined in Article II of its Statute, from which it follows that the Tribunal cannot interfere either with the policies of the international organisations which have recognised its competence, or with the workings of their administrations, unless a violation of the rights of a staff member is in issue. International civil servants seeking to file a complaint with the Tribunal must show that the decisions they are challenging are such as to affect personal interests of theirs which are protected by the rights and safeguards deriving from the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules, or from the terms of their appointments."

Reference(s)

ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

Keywords:

breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; exception; iloat statute; official; organisation's reputation; provision; right; safeguard; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; vested competence; written rule;
Judgment 3112

113th Session, 2012
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Consideration 8

Extract:

The complainant did not sign the offer of appointment within the time limit prescribed by the organisation.
"As the complainant herself acknowledged, there were still unresolved issues that she wished to have settled before entering into a contract. Accordingly, it cannot be said that at that time there was any contractual relationship between the parties, let alone an employment relationship. As there was no employment relationship, the complainant was not an official of the organisation. It follows that the Tribunal is not competent to hear the complaint and that, therefore, it must be dismissed."

Keywords:

acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; contract; non official; offer; offer withdrawn; official; refusal; status of complainant; terms of appointment; time limit;
Judgment 3103

112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Consideration 5

Extract:

"The complaints, which contain some common claims and rest in part on the same arguments, are, to a large extent, interdependent, and the Tribunal finds it appropriate that they be joined, notwithstanding the complainant's position (see Judgments 2861, under 6, and 2944, under 19)."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861, 2944

Keywords:

claim; complaint; joinder; submissions;
Judgment 2980

110th Session, 2011
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN, FR
Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
Consideration 9

Extract:

Competition considered procedurally flawed because candidates were added to the shortlist after the evaluation process had begun.
"[T]he Tribunal rules on the basis of the specific claims against an administrative decision in a particular complaint, which means that if an alleged flaw is found not to have existed, that is not to say that the administrative decision was lawful and that no flaw exists which could be contested in a new complaint within the established time limits."

Keywords:

claim; competence of tribunal; complaint; decision; flaw; res judicata; right of appeal;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >

Last updated: 03.08.2024

^ top

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)

Judgment 4886

Considerations 3-6

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4804

Consideration 3

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 4715

Consideration 12

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4483

Consideration 6

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4277

Consideration 4

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 4273

Consideration 5

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 4097

Consideration 2

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4087

Consideration 2

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4060

Consideration 3

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 4051

Consideration 3

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 3920

Consideration 5

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 3738

Consideration 4

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 3616

Consideration 1

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 3434

Consideration 5

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 3432

Consideration 3

Extract:

Keywords:

Judgment 3279

Consideration 11

Extract:

Reference(s)

Keywords:

Judgment 3115

Consideration 3

Extract: