Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that: the Sidells were negligent in not reporting their marriage before their separation from service; Mr Sidell notified Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in October 2003 of his marriage to Mrs Sidell and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF requested him to provide his original marriage certificate, which he did; and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF did not follow up with Mr Sidell about the matter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, by remaining silent, created a reasonable expectation on the part of the Sidells that Mr Sidell¡¯s pension record was corrected and that his marriage to Mr Sidell was recognised by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the circumstances, it was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Respondent¡¯s argument that the existence of official CPI data for Argentina of itself rendered the Standing Committee impotent as far as a consideration of the Appellant¡¯s request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matters could be raised by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF of its own volition or where a concerned beneficiary applied for the application of paragraph 26. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Respondent¡¯s arguments that the Appellant¡¯s complaint had been dealt with by historical benefits that accrued to him were unpersuasive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the impugned decision was, in effect, a failure by the...

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 an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/209 (on liability) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/062 (on relief). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to support the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that, had the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Staff Pension Committee (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC) not proceeded with its determination, Ms Shanks would more likely than not have been found fit to resume her duties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only valid conclusion available on the medical evidence was that Ms Shanks was not entitled to return to work on a part-time basis since she was not able to obtain medical clearance permitting it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s lack of jurisdiction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was one...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the grounds for appeal were not substantiated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged delay in the disposal of the case at the lower level did not have any impact on the outcome of the case and was partially tolerated by the Appellant. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasonable decision to accept the opinions of the attending doctor at the hospital and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL Chief Medical Officer concerning the approximate time of Mr McKay¡¯s death being some hours prior to Mr McKay arriving at the hospital. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was correct to conclude, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did, that, regardless of any deficiency...

On the alleged procedural error of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was well within the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed this ground of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and noted that the letters of appointment issued to the Appellant for the period of 1 July 2009 through 30 June 2012 did not refer to either the Memorandum, that described the planned phasing-out of the PTA, or the PTA itself. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the PTA is neither a benefit or entitlement under the Staff Regulations and Rules, which ¡°embody the conditions of service and the basic rights and duties and obligations of United Nations staff members,¡± nor an ¡°administrative issuance in application of, and consistent with, the said Regulations and Rules. ¡±...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in ordering both an extension of Mr Sannoh¡¯s appointment and payment of a termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIS Information Circular No. 334 provided that staff with fixed-term appointments that are due to expire shortly will have their appointments extended for one year and, should a staff member¡¯s function no longer be required by the mission prior to the expiration of their fixed-term appointment, a termination indemnity may be payable in accordance with Staff Regulation 9. 3 and Annex III of the Staff Rules...