Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was necessarily aware of the amount of repatriation grant he would be paid already at the beginning of 2011 when he received his payslip, and not in March 2013 as he claimed when he received details from the Payroll Unit regarding the calculation of the amount received. Indeed, in view of the explanations, the Applicant had received already in February 2011 from the Payroll Unit, which reminded him of the fact that his dependency status with respect to his daughter had been discontinued effective 29 August 2007, and which provided him with an excel file...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal noted that at the time the application was filed, there was a contestable administrative decision. However, subsequent to the filing, the Respondent overturned its initial finding of ineligibility and by so doing it expunged the administrative decision upon which the application was predicated. Consequently, there was no longer a contestable administrative decision to be considered by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal is only competent to hear complaints filed by staff members, former staff members or persons makingclaims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member under article 3 of the Statute. Noting that the Applicant¡¯s father had the legal status of an independent contractor for the WFP Mombasa office, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s father was not a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP and as such, the Applicant has no standing to come before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s claim regarding separation from service was not receivable ratione materiae. With respect to his non-selection, the Tribunal held that the Applicant had satisfactorily established that there was a flaw in the recruitment process and that this flaw had breached his right to due process. He was awarded 3 months compensation. Bias: The Tribunal concluded that by not shortlisting the Applicant initially due to an uninvestigated incident from 2009 it was obvious that the decision makers had already formed an adverse view of the Applicant. Consequently, doubt...

The Tribunal held that there are two stages in the procedure for the interpretation of a judgment. First, receivability must be determined and secondly if it is receivable whether it should be interpreted. Receivability: The Tribunal considered whether the filing of an appeal should be taken to mean that it is under consideration and therefore debar an applicant from an interpretation. The Tribunal held that the mere filing of an appeal against a judgment by one party to a case constitutes no legal impediment to the other party filing for an interpretation because the filing of an appeal is...

Duty to report receipt of overpayments - The Applicant failed in his duty to make the Organization aware of overpayments made to him, as provided for in section 2.4 of ST/AI/2009/1. The wordings of ST/AI/2009/1 create a duty for staff members not only to report the receipt of overpayments but also to take steps to ensure their recovery. In other words, it necessarily prohibits the unauthorised prevention of said recovery. Proportionality of disciplinary sanctions - Taking into account all the mitigating factors, the sanction of termination imposed by the Respondent was not proportionate to the...

The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Tribunal found that since the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation at any point in time and also within the 60-day deadline under staff rule 11.2 upon the receipt of his pension entitlement letter, the application was not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant filed her requested for management evaluation after the applicable deadline and that her application was therefore time-barred. The application was dismissed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not have legal standing in this case as he had not applied for the advertised job opening.