Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant¡¯s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to differ from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided to strike out the Appellant¡¯s additional submission and not to take it into consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Standing Committee¡¯s decision which was in full accord with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was neither entitled to an increase in his pension benefit nor to a retroactive payment for the period of his reemployment as there is no legal basis for retroactive payment of these...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in light of the undertaking the Appellant had signed agreeing to work on the relevant education programme at the remuneration rate determined by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, his acceptance of that rate was not compatible with his subsequent claim for retroactive readjustments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the extra and external activities as a lecturer for physical education did not have the consequence to modify the job duties or title of the Appellant¡¯s post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT properly treated the question of the Appellant¡¯s additional work in light of PD A/3 related to the parallel education programme...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing, noting that the Appellant was not entitled to call evidence on appeal that she should have presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly regarded itself as not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no error in its finding that the ABCC¡¯s recommendation had no connection with the attempted recovery of monies which was allegedly paid to the Appellant by the United Nations Federal Credit Union (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU) by mistake. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was quite correct in its opinion that the...

On receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable insofar as it related to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF decision to deduct child support from the Appellant¡¯s pension in accordance with Article 45 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. As to the appeal related to repayment of a sum paid directly to the Appellant¡¯s estranged spouse as child¡¯s benefit under Article 36 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this aspect was not receivable for failure to challenge in a timely manner the decision and that his claim regarding due process with respect to direct payments under Article 36 had no merit. On the merits of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was fully apprised of the options available to him in relation to his pension benefits when his first contract with the Organisation ended in 1985. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s election to transfer his actuarial value to the Social Security Fund of the USSR terminated his contractual relationship with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, who had less than five years¡¯ previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only proper course for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General¡¯s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...