The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it found that Mustafa et al. had been informed of the impugned decision to deny a request to set their grade level at Grade 14 on 19 March 2018. Neither did it err when it found that the applications were not receivable, because the requests for decision review were submitted after the deadline.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in stating that it had no jurisdiction as Mr Kebede¡¯s claim concerned the internal affairs of the staff union, and therefore, an area protected from employer interference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that error was without consequence because Mr Kebede¡¯s claim for compensation was otherwise time-barred per Staff Rule 3.17(ii). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in finding that Mr Kebede¡¯s application for a transfer was not receivable for lack of jurisdiction.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the Secretary-General has implied discretion to revoke benefits if a staff member does not satisfactorily furnish evidence of continued eligibility of existing entitlements, which may arise because of a change in circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it held that the legal frameworks for the two benefit systems are different and that the decisions made under the two legal regimes need not be consistent. Article 33 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPF Regulations does not require proof of a loss of earning capacity and the requirement of ¡°incapacitation¡± is a purely medical...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not able to detect any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, which is in accord with the consistent jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and found the supervisor¡¯s request to the Agency to grant the staff member a special allowance also constituted an implicit request from the staff member himself. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reasoned that not only did the supervisor act upon the express request of the staff member when he sent the recommendation to the Agency, but it was also apparent and self-understood that both the staff member and the supervisor were a party to the process. Additionally, in this particular case, it is the staff member who followed up with the Agency regarding the status of the supervisor¡¯s request...
Regarding Contested Decision #1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-ISA Special Agreement and the resulting ISA Staff Rules do not comply with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and, consequently, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second-level tribunal. The jurisdictional power of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, ratione personae, and ratione materiae cannot be established or extended unilaterally by the litigating parties through a procedural contract, expressly or tacitly agreed.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and found that the administrative decision could not be regarded as a ¡°disguised termination¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was not separated from service on 29 May 2019, and he in fact continued to retain his full position, rights, and entitlements of a staff member until the expiry of his FTA on 30 June 2019.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Agency is estopped from revisiting the determination of whether the injury was service-related, given that the Agency had made several representations to the staff member over a period of time, and which the staff member had relied upon. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed that granting reimbursement for medical expenses in Syria would automatically mean that the Agency would also pay for such expenses in Germany. Pursuant to Area Staff Rule 106.4(3), the staff member needed prior authorization before he could be reimbursed for the costs of medical treatment in hospitals...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT misapplied the law of mootness and erred in law in reaching the impugned Judgment, in that it omitted to follow an important passage in Kallon relating to the cautious approach in applying the law of mootness.
