Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal notes that it follows from ST/SGB/2019/2 that the Secretary-General has delegated the relevant authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (¡°the USG¡±), who in turn, has sub-delegated it to the ASG in accordance with a table of sub-delegation dated 1 March 2021 that the Respondent has submitted in evidence. In a note on ¡°delegation details¡± valid from 15 April 2021 is stated that, ¡°This sub-delegation of decision-making authority addresses a technical error in the attachment of the sub-delegation of decision-making authority issued on...

The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...

Regarding the applicable Appendix D to the present case, the Tribunal notes that in the current Appendix D (ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.1), it is stated that ¡°[f]or claims filed for incidents that occurred prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, the previously applicable rules will be applied¡± (see art. 6.1(b)). According to the Applicant¡¯s own factual submissions, whereas his compensation claim was submitted on 29 June 2018, it concerned incidents that occurred somewhere between 2015 and until his medical leave started in August 2017. The applicable Appendix D is therefore one...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to the extent Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed and found the background of the prior retaliation against the Staff Member affects the principle of the presumption of regularity. In light of the circumstances of this particular case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Administration bore the obligation to justify the lawfulness of its decision to cancel the Job Opening. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by not requiring the Administration to establish its justification in law for the cancellation of the Job Opening. The administrative decision to cancel the Job Opening was rescinded, and the Tribunal set in lieu compensation at two years¡¯ net base...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as an...

Regardless of how the Applicant may intend to define the contested decision, it is clear from the application and its supporting documents, as well as from the request for management evaluation, that the events in dispute date back to March and April 2019. The Applicant therefore missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The application not receivable ratione materiae.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-026bis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the language of the judgment was clear in its meaning and required no interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was asked to present updated medical information to support her request for a review of her case and failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no prejudice existed against the Appellant, since she had an opportunity to present updated medical evidence within the scope of the review of her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Standing Committee decision.

The former staff member appealed and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether he could compel Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF to pay to the Fund its contribution without making the corresponding contribution himself. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, as the former staff member¡¯s secondment was with the World Bank, he should have availed himself of the provisions of Article 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations relating to the transfer of pension rights and he failed to do so. Under these circumstances, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that if the former staff member made his own contribution to the Fund, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF would have been duty-bound to make its corresponding contribution...