Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Mission area was not defined in ST/AI/2006/5. However, the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) Hardship Classification provided a list of duty stations located in a country and, for the DRC where MONUSCO is, Kinshasa and Goma were classified as separate duty stations. For purposes of classification of family duty stations or non-family duty stations, the Office of Human Resource Management¡¯s (OHRM) list of non-family ¡°duty stations,¡± as at 1 January 2014, classified Kinshasa and Goma as two distinct duty stations. Additionally, the report of the Secretary-General to the General...

Provision of adverse material to the Applicant: The Tribunal noted that the ABCC had information before it that was adverse to the Applicant¡¯s claim when it reached its recommended decision but did not disclose to the Applicant. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant should have been given the opportunity to see and comment on the adverse material. In failing to afford him this basic right the ABCC violated the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. Service incurred injury: The Tribunal concluded that it was not within the competence of the MSD medical advisor to provide...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant has neither submitted a request to the ASG/OHRM for exceptional grant of an ex gratia payment under staff rule 12.3(b) nor has he submitted a Management Evaluation Request in respect to the same. The Applicant has not complied with staff rule 11.2(a). As such, the Dispute Tribunal does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae under art. 8.1(c) of its Statute. SPA and ex gratia payments - The legal bases for the grant of SPA are set out in staff rule 3.10 and ST/AI/2003/3. The aforementioned rules do not provide a legal basis for the grant of an ex gratia...

The Tribunal concluded that the Application is not receivable ratione temporis and materiae. Administrative decision: The Applicant submitted that his two requests for management evaluation were challenging two separate decisions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s second request for management evaluation sought review of the same decision that was conveyed to him on 3 September 2014 after he requested the Administration to assist him with obtaining a visa to the United States. Receivability ratione temporis: The Tribunal held that the time limits in art. 8(1)(d)(i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute...

Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal is only competent to consider applications against an administrative decision for which an applicant has timely requested management evaluation, when required. Failure to file a timely request for management evaluation makes the application irreceivable, ratione materiae.

Receivability: The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s subsequent correspondence with the ONUCI Human Resources Office after he was notified of the decision did not constitute a new or discrete decision. He failed to meet the 60 day deadline set out in staff rule 11.2(c) for management evaluation. Consequently, his Application is not receivable.

Role of the MEU - The MEU¡¯s role is restricted to conducting an impartial and objective evaluation of administrative decisions contested by staff members of the Secretariat to assess whether the decision was made in accordance with rules and regulations and not to act as Co-Counsel for the Respondent. Respondent¡¯s disclosure of legally privileged email communications between the Applicant¡¯s Counsel and MEU - Such activity compromises the perception of MEU as an independent, impartial and objective Unit and ¡°would leadto the complete absence of any form of communication or possible mediation...

Receivability: The Tribunal observed that there is a difference between a contested administrative decision and the grounds relied on to impugn the decision and noted that neither of the two issues remanded for the consideration of the Tribunal was included in the list of administrative decisions which the Applicant requested the MEU to review. The Tribunal concluded that although the Applicant raised the issue of the non-conversion of his temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment, he did so as a ground for contesting the specified decisions. He did not identify this issue as a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the main legal issue was whether ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility and hardship scheme) applied to the counting of assignments that the Applicant undertook before the instruction went into effect on 1 July 2011. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that ST/AI/2011/6 could not be applied retroactively to assignments that took place before it went into effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the revised staff rule 4.8(b), which allows for different counting of the Applicant¡¯s assignments, was applicable only to assignments starting on or after 1 July 2009, and was not retroactively applicable to prior...

Disciplinary process and agreed separation: While the fact that an investigation for misconduct was ongoing was not in itself a basis for excluding the Applicant from consideration for agreed separation outright, as this was not one of the non-eligibility factors set forth in the relevant rules, the Administration was entitled to take into account the outcome of the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process when carrying out its consideration to award a discretionary benefit on to a staff member.

Accountability referral: The Tribunal referred the case to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Administrator due to...