Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

For the purpose of determining eligibility for a SPA, the Applicant performed higher level functions from the date of the issuance of a vacancy announcement for the higher-level post until the selected candidate assumed the higher-level post. As he performed the higher-level functions for less than four months, the Applicant failed to meet the eligibility criteria under ST/AI/2003/3. The Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for SPA and that the Administration¡¯s decision not to pay it was lawful.

The ABCC rectified the procedural irregularities as directed by Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2019/019 in its reconsideration of the Applicant¡¯s claim. The ABCC received and considered a medical opinion of the medical doctor of MSD, who reviewed medical reports submitted by the Applicant along with his prior medical history. While the Applicant made allegations of improper considerations, he did not provide any supporting evidence and these allegations are without merit.

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...

The Applicant was initially informed of the contested decision by memorandum dated 3 June 2013 and admitted in her application that she did not request management evaluation of such decision. The 21 November 2016 response from the Chief, RSCE to the Applicant¡¯s request to be paid a relocation grant in relation to her transfer in 2013 is not a new administrative decision that ¡°resets the clock¡± for the purpose of requesting management evaluation. After having carefully reviewed the 21 November 2016 memorandum, the Tribunal concluded that it did not constitute a new decision since it did not add...

Under the revised Appendix D, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based upon a medical determination shall submit a request for reconsideration of the medical determination by a technical body. On the other hand, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based on considerations other than a medical determination shall submit a written request for management evaluation. The revised Appendix D makes either a reconsideration process under art. 5.1 or a management evaluation process mandatory. In other words, a claimant needs to request either a reconsideration of medical determinations or a...

The impugned decision is not a mere reiteration of a prior decision as in response to the Applicant¡¯s request for reconsideration, the Applicant¡¯s case was resubmitted to the Committee. Thus, the Committee¡¯s decision notified to the Applicant subsequently is subject to this Tribunal¡¯s review. The Health and Life Insurance Section¡¯s advice or failure to give proper advice is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Under the applicable procedures related to exceptional reimbursements, it provides that claims for services and treatments not covered under the insurance programme...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, the Tribunal found the applications receivable ratione temporis in view that 1) it did not process the Applicants¡¯ 2014/2015 motions for extension of time, thus did not include in its March and June 2015 adjudication of similar cases and 2) in light of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s March and June 2015 judgments. Concerning receivability ratione materiae, the Tribunal considered the fact that the Applicants did not request management evaluation on the grounds that the decision had been taken by a technical body. In this connection, the Tribunal noted...

The Tribunal held that the Application was moot and irreceivable. The Tribunal observed that it had acquired ex officio knowledge that the Applicant had been separated from service on the grounds of abandonment of post. The Tribunal acquired this knowledge from Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2018/105 that was also filed by the Applicant. In the circumstance, the Applicant was no longer a staff member and her request to be transferred to a duty station where the supply of electricity was stable or to grant her an agreed termination of the appointment had been overtaken by subsequent events rendering the...

The Applicant¡¯s claim for damages based upon an allegation that his property was destroyed and that his private safety deposit box containing USD21,000 in cash was lost was found irreceivable. The Applicant did not include this claim in his application. The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable regarding the claim for reimbursement of the cost of security services from November 2014 till May 2015. That claim did not expressly form part of the application or the management evaluation request. The claim for damages equalling USD150,000 for ¡°subsistence while stranded in Uganda...

Receivability: The Respondent submitted in his reply that the Applicant¡¯s request for compensation was not made within the requisite time limit. However, in denying the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation, the Administration did not reject his claim on the ground that it was filed late but rejected his claim on the merits and thus the Administration implicitly waived the timeline required under ST/AI/149/Rev.4. Since the contested decision is the Claims Board¡¯s decision to deny the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation and the Applicant complied with the mandatory requirement of submitting a...