Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.

The Tribunal held that the application was moot. At the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, ABCC had already issued its decision and granted the Applicant¡¯s claims. Accordingly, the Application was found not receivable.

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not a function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The overarching import of staff rule 11.2(a) read together with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute establishes the obligation of seeking management evaluation prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal as a rule. That controlling element for the status of ¡°technical body¡± in the sense of staff rule 11.2(b), is designation by the Secretary-General. Absent designation by the Secretary-General, ICSC is not to be deemed a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not a function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The overarching import of staff rule 11.2(a) read together with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute establishes the obligation of seeking management evaluation prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal as a rule. That controlling element for the status of ¡°technical body¡± in the sense of staff rule 11.2(b), is designation by the SecretaryGeneral. Absent designation by the Secretary-General, ICSC is not to be deemed a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not a function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The overarching import of staff rule 11.2(a) read together with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute establishes the obligation of seeking management evaluation prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal as a rule. That controlling element for the status of ¡°technical body¡± in the sense of staff rule 11.2(b), is designation by the SecretaryGeneral. Absent designation by the Secretary-General, ICSC is not to be deemed a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned...

Making a determination as to what constitutes a technical body is not a function of the Dispute or Appeals Tribunals. The overarching import of staff rule 11.2(a) read together with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute establishes the obligation of seeking management evaluation prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal as a rule. That controlling element for the status of ¡°technical body¡± in the sense of staff rule 11.2(b), is designation by the SecretaryGeneral. Absent designation by the Secretary-General, ICSC is not to be deemed a technical body for the purpose of exempting the impugned...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was notified of the contested decision on 7 June 2017. In accordance with the time-limits provided by staff rule 11.2(c ), the Applicant had until 6 August 2017 to submit his request for management evaluation. Rather, the Applicant submitted his request on 21 August 2017. Accordingly, his request was timebarred and his application before the Tribunal not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The application was deemed premature because the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the impugned decision.

The claim the Applicant filed on 27 March 2013 was out of time and subject to the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion excercisable ¡°in exceptional circumstances¡± because she did not submit the claim within four months of knowledge of the injury as required by art. 12 of Appendix D. With respect to the existence of exceptional circumstances, the ABCC disregarded evidence and information provided by the Applicant regarding her medical condition which impeded her ability to direct her attention to the claim for service incurred injury. The ABCC did not consider these reasons, apportion appropriate...

From both the testimonies and the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, it found as established that the dire financial situation at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP KCO, as it related to the ¡°11888 fund¡±, was the reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Applicant did not produce any evidence allowing the Tribunal to conclude that at the time of the contested decision, the ¡°11888 fund¡± still had funds to allow the Organization to renew her contract. While it is not contested that an incident occurred during the mission to Rwanda in 2014, the Tribunal does not find that the testimonies and...