Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Appeals Tribunal¡¯s first finding is that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.

We also find correct the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...

Considering that the Applicant opted for payment of the repatriation grant at the dependency rate, two options were open to her husband:

a.To claim a repatriation grant at the single rate for the period of service subsequent to the Applicant¡¯s separation up to the date of his separation from service; or

b.If eligible to a dependency rate, to claim that rate for the whole period of qualifying service, minus the amount of the grant paid to the Applicant.

The evidence on record shows that the Applicant¡¯s husband served three years after the Applicant¡¯s separation. For these three years of non...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member¡¯s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Kucherov did receive full and fair consideration for the post which was finally filled by another candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no flaw in the competitive selection procedure and agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment contained errors of fact and law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Section 7. 5 of ST/AI/2010/3, as amended, does not require a job opening to identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of technical skills. Rather, it provides that it may include a competency-based interview and/or other...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable as the Appellant had partially prevailed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and was entitled to file an appeal to pursue the modification, annulment, or vacation of the impugned judgment. Noting that the crux of the matter before it was the issue of the exchange rate used to calculate the repatriation grant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the correct rate was applied because the applicable rate was that which applied on the date of receipt of the proof of relocation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error...

Tribunal¡¯s review of eligibility for benefits: The Secretary-General has no discretion to grant or deny a benefit provided for in the Staff Regulations and Rules and is bound, in this respect, by the applicable rules. Accordingly, when the matter before the Tribunal concerns the refusal to grant a benefit, the Tribunal may only examine whether the staff member was eligible for, or entitled to, such benefit, without taking into account the grounds for refusal provided by the Administration. The fact that other staff members in the same situation may have been granted the disputed benefit is...