Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Material facts: The Tribunal noted that the decision letter, the minutes of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB meetings and the evidence of the Secretary of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB showed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB acted on the understanding that in spite of its date, the Applicant¡¯s 7 December 2010 inventory list had been prepared after the event and that there was no evidence of the Applicant¡¯s personal possessions that predated it. The Tribunal found that such evidence existed and was available to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB did not take into account all material facts relating to the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation. Criterion for assessing compensation: The Tribunal noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB decided that the Applicant¡¯s inventory lists were dated and stamped after the loss and in the absence of corroboration and proof of loss recommendedapproval of the ¡°minimum necessary for mission life¡±. The Tribunal concluded that there is no written policy or rule that empowers the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB to invoke that test for approving compensation. Thus, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB test did not conform with the entitlement of staff members either under staff rule 6.5 to ¡°reasonable compensation in the event of loss or damage to their personal effects determined to be directly attributable to the performance of duties on behalf of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ¡± or under paragraph 8 of ST/AI/149/Rev. 4 which refers to articles reasonably required by the staff member for day-to-day life under the conditions existing in the duty station. Legitimate expection: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not receive an express promise from the Secretary of the Local Claims Review Board that the affected staff members would be reimbursed for all their losses.