Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

1)Disciplinary sanction The Applicant failed to disclose that her husband had been employed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF vendors during the Applicant¡¯s employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF and these material facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been sufficiently established and were not in dispute between the parties. The legal framework is sufficiently clear in determining that a conflict of interest may exist even where there is only the possibility that the staff member or the private business with which he or she may have association could benefit from such association. The Administration properly...

The Tribunal held that the Application was moot and irreceivable. The Tribunal observed that it had acquired ex officio knowledge that the Applicant had been separated from service on the grounds of abandonment of post. The Tribunal acquired this knowledge from Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2018/105 that was also filed by the Applicant. In the circumstance, the Applicant was no longer a staff member and her request to be transferred to a duty station where the supply of electricity was stable or to grant her an agreed termination of the appointment had been overtaken by subsequent events rendering the...

The Applicant¡¯s claim for damages based upon an allegation that his property was destroyed and that his private safety deposit box containing USD21,000 in cash was lost was found irreceivable. The Applicant did not include this claim in his application. The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable regarding the claim for reimbursement of the cost of security services from November 2014 till May 2015. That claim did not expressly form part of the application or the management evaluation request. The claim for damages equalling USD150,000 for ¡°subsistence while stranded in Uganda...

Receivability: The Respondent submitted in his reply that the Applicant¡¯s request for compensation was not made within the requisite time limit. However, in denying the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation, the Administration did not reject his claim on the ground that it was filed late but rejected his claim on the merits and thus the Administration implicitly waived the timeline required under ST/AI/149/Rev.4. Since the contested decision is the Claims Board¡¯s decision to deny the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation and the Applicant complied with the mandatory requirement of submitting a...

The Tribunal dismissed the application. The Tribunal found that the contested decision was rescinded promptly after its issuance. In fact, the main claim of the application was rendered moot even before the commencement of the proceedings before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal finds the Respondent¡¯s application for interpretation as an attempt to have the Tribunal re-examine its Order, which is not a proper way to seek a reversal or modification of the Tribunal¡¯s Order. As the Appeals Tribunal clearly stated, the exercise of interpretation under art. 30 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure is not an avenue for review or the basis for a fresh judgment. It goes without saying that the motion is not receivable and must be dismissed. The Administration provided some reasonable explanation for the contested decision, which is supported by evidence...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...

The first issue is determining the Applicant¡¯s date of recruitment as that date establishes the legal framework for the Applicant¡¯s eligibility for ASHI. Under the applicable legal framework, staff members recruited before 1 July 2007 would be eligible for ASHI after five years of eligible service, whereas staff members recruited after 1 July 2007 would be eligible for ASHI after 10 years of eligible service. The Applicant held several appointments of limited duration in 2005-2010 before she was re-employed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP on a fixed-term appointment in November 2010. The Tribunal found that, under...