In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in Lloret-Alcaniz et al. 2018-蘑菇视频AT-840, Quijano-Evans et al. 2018-蘑菇视频AT-841 and Mirella et al. 2018-蘑菇视频AT-842, the claim is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that only the decision of 10 August 2016 was controlling because it informed the Applicant in no uncertain terms that his P-4 appointment was going to be voided. He requested management evaluation on 7 October 2016, which was well within the 60-day delay set out in staff rules 11.2(a) and 11.2(c). This claim was therefore receivable. Revoking the Applicant’s appointment ab initio was disproportionate and thus illegal. Recovery of the Applicant’s paid emoluments was accordingly without basis. The refusal to pay the Applicant’s benefits attaching to service in Mogadishu at the...
Art. 8.1(i) of the 蘑菇视频DT Statute provides that in cases where a management evaluation of the contested decision is required, as in this case, an application shall be receivable if it is filed within the statutory time-limits. A staff member who has received an adverse decision about a claim cannot purport to unilaterally withdraw it and resubmit it with allegedly new evidence to attempt to have a new decision. In this case, there is not even new evidence. There would never be finality or certainty in respect of any decision if this were to be permitted. Such conduct, aimed at resetting the time...
Applicant withdrew all allegations and claims, there being no matter for adjudication by the Dispute Tribunal and the case is closed.
Receivability. The Applicant took no action to challenge the payment made to his wife, and the collection that would necessarily follow, within the 60 day period provided for in Staff Rule 11.2. At the time of submitting his request for management evaluation on 23 June 2017, the said deadline had experide several months ago. The Tribunal finds therefore concluded that the application is irreceivable rationae materiae (Egglesfield 2014-蘑菇视频AT-402) concerning the recovery by the Administration of the payment of EUR 7,000 made to the Applicant's wife. The application is also irreceivable rationae...
At the time of the 9 March 2017 communication, the Applicant had been notified of the non-extension of his appointment neither had he received any individual communication regarding his separation entitlements. In short, his individual terms of appointment have not been affected and he had nothing to challenge yet. The first time when the individual decision may have transpired was on the occasion of receipt of a payslip which did not contain termination indemnity. That was the date of the contested decision indicated in the management evaluation. For a payslip to be accepted as such...
The ST/AI stipulates a condition attached to the entitlement of the payment of the balance of the relocation grant, namely that the payment of the balance of the relocation grant shall be made only when an extension of the assignment occurs at least six months prior to the expected end of the assignment at the duty station. The extension having occurred approximately three months before the end of the assignment, 蘑菇视频DT held that the Applicant is not entitled to the balance. The fact that the Applicant submits that nobody advised him of this condition in January 2018, six months prior to the...
There are two elements that must be established for a claim under Appendix D, one is the medical assessment of whether the claimant suffered from the injury or illness as alleged. The other is the non-medical factual determination whether the illness or injury was attributable to the performance of official duties on behalf of the Organization. The obtaining, handling, review, analysis and dissemination of any form of material to be used in a matter as evidence must be done in compliance with some basic rules to ensure that basic principles of fairness and due process are upheld, particularly...
Since the Applicant withdrew her claim, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.
Since the Applicant withdrew her claim, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.
