Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant does not contest a decision of the Secretary-General but a decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, which he claims was communicated to him by the Chief of the Office of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF at Geneva. The Tribunal has already stated in the past that it is not competent to review Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF is an entity established to provide retirement, death, disability and related benefits for the staff of its various member organizations. The Secretary-General has no role in the administration of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF benefits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF is also not one of the agencies, organizations or entities ¡°where a special agreement...

Receivability The Tribunal found the application receivable ratione temporis. Merits The Tribunal considered that while the Administration has a duty of care vis-¨¤-vis its staff members in the management of the social security system and relevant entitlements, the system is based on certification and reporting, with the main responsibility for providing the Administration with the required medical certificates and reports lying on the staff member. Staff members must strictly comply with the legal requirements and provide complete material that contains sufficient precision, including the...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not identify any operative part of Judgment Massi Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/100 that would not have been executed. Furthermore, Judgment Massi Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/100 dealt with the calculation and timing of compensation for loss of earning capacity due to the Applicant from 14 May 2005 until 31 December 2015. No order was made in respect of any payment or entitlement to compensation after 31 December 2015. The Tribunal found that the present application raised a different matter than that addressed in Judgment Massi Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/100 and was not related to any of the remedies...

Scope of judicial review The Tribunal entertains applications against administrative decisions de novo and without regard to the outcome of the MEU review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not adjudicate the Applicant¡¯s arguments in relation to the Internal Oversight Office (IOO¡¯s) responses to her request for management evaluation. Whether the contested decision is lawful Whether the Applicant is eligible to receive a termination indemnity In the present case, the Applicant joined WMO on 1 July 1999. Her normal retirement age is thus 62 pursuant to art. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. When she...

Management evaluation of the decision concerning Applicant's share of contribution for medical insurance not filed within the statutory deadline. Consequently, this part of the application is not receivable ratione materiae. Application is receivable concerning the decision concerning the Applicant's share of contribution for the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF). Art. 25.b)i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations clearly provides that contributions during SLWOP are paid either 1) in full by the staff member, 2) in full by the employing Organization or 3) partly by the staff member and...

1. In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that Staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae...

In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae. On...