Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable since, in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the 蘑菇视频DT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal, more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision.
Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..
Interpretation of art. 11.3(c) of Appendix DArticle 11.3(c) is ambiguous. Pensionable remuneration scales are adjusted regularly and there is no explicit statement or guidance in Appendix D to indicate the relevant or operative date for assessing the pensionable remuneration at grade P-4, step V in any given case.Past practice…it is clear from the afore-stated email that the ABCC Secretary’s personal experience of the consistent practice as at 21 June 2013 spanned a mere period of two years, and that in his experience, this practice has been used without exception. The statement does not...
The 蘑菇视频DT found that it does not have jurisdiction to review the medical opinion expressed by the Medical Services Division, as requested by the Applicant, and dismissed the application in its entirety. Procedure for challenging a decision taken pursuant to Appendix D: A claimant may either challenge a decision taken by the Secretary-General upon recommendation from the ABCC by seeking reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D or by appealing it before the Dispute Tribunal. However, the two avenues offer different prospects. Reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D: The reconsideration...
Interpretation of art. 10.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal - The question arises whether the Tribunal should seek and obtain the concurrence of the Secretary-General before correcting a procedural error in the decision making process of the ABCC or the Secretary-General himself. The Tribunal in the circumstances of the present case is not prepared to allow its power of judicial review to be circumscribed by art. 10.4. It is not deemed that the concurrence of the Secretary-General is necessary to take the appropriate remedial measure if this is found to be necessary. The Secretary...
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 parties were at odds as to the procedure for establishing a medical board under art. 17 of Appendix D. The Applicant’s case was that the ABCC failed to adhere to art. 17(b) of former Appendix D because it failed to establish a medical board to consider and report on the medical aspects of his claim. The Respondent submitted that the onus was on the Applicant to request the establishment of a medical board and to nominate a medical practitioner to represent him on the medical board. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s submission that the Applicant was obliged to request a medical board...
The Tribunal finds that since the Applicant’s EOD into the United Nations common system is 10 October 2005, the Administration used the incorrect EOD date for the calculation of the termination indemnity due to the Applicant. Therefore, the contested decision is unlawful and stands to be rescinded. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has placed no evidence whatsoever, illustrating any discriminatory treatment against him. On the contrary, the record indicates that the Respondent took measures to ensure that the Applicant did not suffer hardship following his separation from service by...
The Tribunal held that the application was moot. At the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, ABCC had already issued its decision and granted the Applicant’s claims. Accordingly, the Application was found not receivable.
The ABCC rectified the procedural irregularities as directed by Judgment No. 蘑菇视频DT/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.
