Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record established that the invoice and the medical report that the Applicant submitted to Cigna were not authentic. The Tribunal held that this was enough to substantiate the accusation that the Applicant used false documents to receive improper and undue economic benefits from Cigna. The Tribunal further concluded that no evidence was offered of the effectiveness of the medical treatment. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in misconduct through his submission of a fraudulent...

The application was not receivable because it had been filed without awaiting the result of management evaluation.

The Tribunal held that tax reimbursement is governed by a specific and unique legal regime carefully deliberated upon by the General Assembly. Staff regulation 3.3(f) cannot be read into ¡°other payments¡± in staff rule 3.17(ii).

The Tribunal agreed with the Applicant¡¯s understanding that payments under staff rule 3.17(ii) relate to all staff and all nationalities of the United Nations and are not restricted only to USA citizens as in the case for reimbursement of income tax under staff regulation 3.3(f). Hence, the two cannot be read together or have same application.

The Tribunal also agreed...

The principal claim against administrative inaction has become moot following the reassignments of both the Applicant and her supervisor. The reassignment decision created an essentially different factual and legal outcome of the Applicant¡¯s complaint under ST/SGB/2019/8.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member¡¯s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Ms. Banyanga¡¯s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Standing Committee. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Banyanga had not adequately explained the inconsistencies between her own personal information and the information submitted by Mr. Mbirange regarding his reported spouse (including that the name ¡°Banyanga¡± did not appear in the documentation that Mr. Mbirange provided about his spouse).

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected Ms. Banyanga¡¯s reliance on the marriage certificate that she submitted, which showed a purported date of marriage in 1997. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Mbirange entered...

With respect to the Secretary-General's appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that misconduct under Count 2 was not established, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Messages sent by the staff member to his neighbour were suggestions and statements to a person who was not a witness at the time. The staff member was not under and did not suspect he would likely be under an investigation at the time he sent the messages. The neighbour found them appropriate and did not feel ¡°influenced¡± by them.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also denied the Secretary-General¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in retroactively applying WMO Staff Rule 193.3(c) when it examined her right to a termination indemnity. At the time the impugned decision was taken, only the 2019 WMO Staff Regulations and Rules were in force and should have been applied. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error in applying the 2020 law based on the Secretary-General¡¯s submission of the wrong version of the WMO Regulations and Rules to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's finding that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abedv. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's decision on receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.

Turning to the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...