Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the overpayment and that this failure was a breach of its obligation under section 2.3 of ST/AI/2009/1. Although the Applicant failed to report the overpayment, the Tribunal found that he was not negligent in his duty to report because he was caught up in a perilous security situation at the time he received his pay slip at the end of November 2015, which may have caused him to not advise the Respondent of the overpayment. The Tribunal noted further that ST/AI/2009/1 does not make the Respondent¡¯s obligation to notify...

The Applicant¡¯s education grant claim for his four-year-old son did not fall under the exception of section 2 of ST/AI/2011/4 Amend 1. To the extent that the entitlement for private tuition in the mother tongue of the; Applicant was part and parcel of the education grant and not separate from it, the Applicant would be entitled to it only where the child in respect of whom he makes the claim is entitled to an education grant. This Tribunal cannot decide as to whether the Applicant ought to have been allowed during the management evaluation process to review any documents and whether failure to...

The distinction between reimbursement of 100 per cent of admissible educational expenses for a child with a disability who attends a regular education institution depends on whether the necessary special arrangements are provided by the educational institution or not. If the institution does not provide such arrangements, the special teaching expenses are reimbursed at 100% but the educational expenses are reimbursed at the regular rate of 75%. Sec. 14.1 has to be read in conjunction with sec. 12 of the ST/AI/2011/4, which defines admissible expenses for the special education grant as...

Art. 8.1(i) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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...

The Administration is bound to comply with its applicable legal framework promulgated in accordance with the mandate of the General Assembly, regardless of the impact of its implementation on staff members¡¯ benefits and entitlement. Any changes to the benefits and entitlements scheme could have different impact to staff members, and it is not the role of the Administration to consider such impact. The Administration is bound by its own regulations, rules and administrative issuances, and there is no requirement to harmonize the application of the rules among different United Nations entities...

The Tribunal noted that in accordance with ST/AI/2018/1, eligibility of international staff members for education grant in respect of their children is to be determined by inter alia the conditions that: a) the child is in full-time attendance at an educational institution at the primary level or above, and b) the child is five years of age or older at the beginning of the academic year, or the child reaches the age of five within three months of the beginning of the school year. The Tribunal found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF correctly considered that at both periods for which the Applicant applied for...

The facts of the case amounted to two decisions being challenged: the decision of the RSCE to deny the Applicant¡¯s request for education grant for his son for the 2019-2020 academic year, in total or prorated, and the Head of Mission¡¯s refusal to grant the Applicant an exception under staff rule 12.3(b). The Applicant only requested management evaluation of the RSCE decision. To the extent that the Applicant contested the decision of the Head of Mission, the application was not receivable since the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of that decision. The Applicant did not...