Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. He submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by denying the staff member¡¯s request for referral to mediation the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the former staff member¡¯s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites. Instead, he should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the staff member¡¯s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...

The Judges of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were not appointed by the IJC whose mandate was to identify suitable candidates for recommendation to the General Assembly. The Judges were elected by the General Assembly on 2 March 2009 and that process involved the participation of nearly 190 Member States of the United Nations. This guaranteed their independence. The Applicant¡¯s averment of lack of impartiality was based on the fact that the Judges of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were selected by the IJC. The Applicant made general accusations of potential bias but did not give any precision on how this bias on the...

Summary Judgment The Tribunal noted that Summary Judgment can only be entered in a case where the material facts are not in dispute and a party to case is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further that for a party to seek Summary Judgment, it has to be on the merits of the case and such a party should have pleaded facts in relation to the case. The Respondent had not pleaded any material facts and had also not joined issues with the Applicant on the merits of the case. Receivability In determining the receivability of the Application, the Tribunal addressed the Applicant¡¯s access to...

Independent status: OSLA enjoys functional or operational independence, in the sense that it does not receive instructions from its hierarchy when providing advice to staff members or representing their interests, while remaining administratively subject to the Secretary-General. Attribution of Independent organs¡¯ acts to the Secretary-General: If article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute designates the Secretary-General as the respondent before the Tribunal, he assumes this role in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer, and not on account of his personal behaviour. This responsibility is linked...

Role of the MEU - The MEU¡¯s role is restricted to conducting an impartial and objective evaluation of administrative decisions contested by staff members of the Secretariat to assess whether the decision was made in accordance with rules and regulations and not to act as Co-Counsel for the Respondent. Respondent¡¯s disclosure of legally privileged email communications between the Applicant¡¯s Counsel and MEU - Such activity compromises the perception of MEU as an independent, impartial and objective Unit and ¡°would leadto the complete absence of any form of communication or possible mediation...