Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. As a result, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that several months after the Secretary-General had been notified of the Judgment, the only action taken was that some responses had been elicited from four staff members alleged in the complaint to have engaged in misconduct and that ¡°these responses alongside the 22 pages and 18 annexes¡± to the complaint were under review.

Noting the justification of the Secretary-General for the inaction that in the instant matter, no specific time had been set for execution, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had not acted as promptly as per the obligations imposed on it, "within a...

As a preliminary matter, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted AAM¡¯s request for anonymity. Considering that the Judgment set out medical details regarding AAM, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it necessary to protect his confidential information.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there were four issues for adjudication on appeal: 1) whether AAM¡¯s appeal was moot/premature in light of a pending medical determination; 2) whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Controller had the delegated authority to deny AAM¡¯s claim for compensation under Appendix D; 3) whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the decision of the Controller was reasonable...

Ms. Larriera filed an appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first examined whether Ms. Larriera was entitled to file a claim under Appendix D. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that ¨C unlike the Pension case - for the purpose of the Staff Regulations and Rules, the law of Brazil, Mr. M¡¯s national state, was to be the law determining his marital or domestic partnership status as at the date of his death for Appendix D purposes. That status, as determined subsequently by a Brazilian court of competent jurisdiction, was that Mr. M and Ms. Larriera were, as at the date of his death (and despite his still extant French marriage to Ms. M) in...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. He argued that the Dispute Tribunal may only issue an Order for execution under art. 12.4 of its Statute where a judgment required a time limit for execution and such execution had not been carried out.

The Tribunal considered that while Judgment Applicant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/055 did not provide for its execution within a certain period of time, it was reasonable to infer that in the absence of an appeal, said judgment should have been executed within a reasonable time, after the expiry of the 60-day time limit to file an...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested selection decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in selecting the selected candidate.

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a ¡°stable union¡± with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Ms. Larriera¡¯s application for revision was untimely. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

The Tribunal found that it was not unreasonable nor unlawful to require the Applicant to work from the office for two days per week. The Administration, therefore, properly exercised its discretion in declining the Applicant¡¯s request to work from home for the entire work week. The Tribunal took note that the Applicant had been able to work remotely on a full-time basis from March 2020 to December 2022 and that there was an operational need for the Applicant to return to work. The Director reasonably, weighed this operational fact against allowing the Applicant to telecommute for the entire...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji¡¯s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji¡¯s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Mukomah.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Mukomah¡¯s submission that she was the spouse of the late participant at the time of his death and is therefore entitled on that basis to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the Fund¡¯s Regulations, was not sustainable based on the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was insufficient evidence proving that the late participant and Ms. Mukomah lawfully entered a (second) union legally recognized by the competent authority of Kenya conferring similar legal effects as a marriage in relation to pension rights...