Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant missed the 90-day deadline to file the application which is, therefore, time-barred.

There is nothing in the wording of sec. 2.5(a) that prescribes for ruling out of the count of one-year assignments that were preceded by an assignment that lasted less than a year. Accordingly, even though the prior assignment of nine months in Cairo did not itself count as an assignment, the following period in Tripoli, which was for one year, fully meets the requirements to be counted as an assignment. The Tribunal finds that there is no room to interpret the relevant provisions to claim, like the Respondent does, that his return to Tripoli in April 2012 should be considered as a...

The case is moot since a cheque for the reimbursement of a dental claim was already issued prior to the filing of this application. There is no longer any administrative decision to be contested, and the dispute is resolved. It appears that the only remaining issue is an arrangement to make a payment of the bank fee by issuing a cheque or transferring money to the Applicant¡¯s account. This is not a legal question for the Tribunal to adjudicate upon. Regarding moral damages, she has failed to provide any evidence to support her claim of moral damages in either her request for management...

Receivability The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants had requested management evaluation and received a response on 3 October 2017. 2) Staff rule 11.2(b) was inapplicable because ICSC is not a technical body. 3) Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slip of August 2017. 4) The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in this case was clearly not based on direct organisational authority and it concerned an area protected from employer interference, the internal affairs of a Staff Union. It did not produce a sufficiently direct legal consequence to the legal order of the Applicant as a staff member.

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1)Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants had requested management evaluation and received a response on 3 October 2017. 2)Staff rule 11.2(b) was inapplicable because ICSC is not a technical body. 3)Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slip of August 2017. 4)The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay...

Receivability In the present case, the Applicants contest the Administration¡¯s decision dated 14 August 2021 to consider Mr. Oming, whom the Administration identified as the spouse of the deceased staff member, as the recipient of a death benefit pursuant to staff rule 9.11(a)(vii). In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that the extension of its jurisdiction to deceased staff members is intended to permit resolution of disputes concerning contractual rights acquired during previous employment by staff members whose contracts have expired (see Arango 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1120, para. 28). The...

- Having weighed both accounts of the factual background of the case, alongside the evidence on record, the Tribunal finds that there was clear evidence of unsatisfactory performance during the period leading to the Applicant¡¯s separation from service. Thus, it finds no wrong in the decision to terminate the Applican¡¯s continuing appointment. - The accidents reported by the Applicant occurred after she received the letter terminating her contract effective immediately. Hence, at the time of the accident the Applicant was no longer a staff member of the Organization. As a result, she was not...

Scope of judicial review The Tribunal entertains applications against administrative decisions de novo and without regard to the outcome of the MEU review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not adjudicate the Applicant¡¯s arguments in relation to the Internal Oversight Office (IOO¡¯s) responses to her request for management evaluation. Whether the contested decision is lawful Whether the Applicant is eligible to receive a termination indemnity In the present case, the Applicant joined WMO on 1 July 1999. Her normal retirement age is thus 62 pursuant to art. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. When she...

In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first claim, the Tribunal held that pursuant to staff rule 6.2 the entitlement to sick leave does not follow a cycle calculated since the date of appointment as argued by the Applicant, but, rather, is calculated pursuant to its own cycle determined by the date of the sick leave. The Tribunal thus concluded that the method used by the administration to calculate the Applicant's sick leave days was consistent with staff rule 6.2, while the method advocated by the Applicant was not. Accordingly, the application failed on the score of sick leave. On the Applicant¡¯s...