Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Since there was no written agreement or any other signed document that clearly showed the Respondent¡¯s undertaking to pay the Applicant USD10, 790, the Tribunal determined whether there was an implied in-fact contract by examining the parties¡¯ intentions based on their conduct and other circumstances to establish if there was mutual assent and consideration. The Tribunal concluded that all the elements of a binding, valid and enforceable contract existed between the parties because: (i) there was mutual assent leading both parties to jointly inform the Tribunal that they had established the...

The Tribunal is required to factually find that the decision that is impugned before it is in the process of being administratively reviewed. A preliminary finding to this effect is a prerequisite for litigation before this Tribunal. The record before the Tribunal did not show that a request for management evaluation had been filed by the Applicant. The Applicant was given the opportunity to address this situation and correct it, but did not. The application therefore was found incompetent and the only option open to the Tribunal was to summarily dismiss it for want of management evaluation.

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the overpayment and that this failure was a breach of its obligation under section 2.3 of ST/AI/2009/1. Although the Applicant failed to report the overpayment, the Tribunal found that he was not negligent in his duty to report because he was caught up in a perilous security situation at the time he received his pay slip at the end of November 2015, which may have caused him to not advise the Respondent of the overpayment. The Tribunal noted further that ST/AI/2009/1 does not make the Respondent¡¯s obligation to notify...

Receivability ratione materiae: The application is receivable ratione materiae if the applicant is contesting ¡°an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡± (art. 2.1 of the Statute) and if the applicant previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation, where required (art. 8.1(c) of the Statute).

Receivability before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB. As follows from art. 12 read together with art. 14(b)(ii) of ST/AI/149/Rev.4, for a compensation claim for damage to be receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB, the relevant staff member is required (¡°shall¡±) to take the following mandatory and cumulative actions, setting forth in detail all relevant circumstances to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB: (a) to notify the United Nations authorities and the local police about the incident as soon as possible; (b) to submit all pertinent evidence; (c) in case the staff member holds valid personal insurance at the date of the incident, to take all the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s separation was lawful. Insofar as the determination that the Applicant was fit to work on the date of his separation from service had been made through the statutory mechanisms specially designed to settle sick leave related matters, and in conformity with the established procedures, the Organization was not bound, under sec. 4.9 of ST/AI/2013/1, to further extend his contract, regardless of whether he still had a balance of sick leave days. The Tribunal also held that, while there was an excessive delay in notifying the Applicant of his separation, he...

The Applicant submitted that his initial ¡°informal¡± enquiries into a possible review of his retirement age only began in July 2016, and that his first formal query of the date was not until 13 August 2016. It was difficult to imagine why the Applicant never thought to query the applicable position, or seek to have the mandatory retirement age in respect of himself reviewed, until five months before he was actually due to retire. Indeed, the Applicant had not sought to even challenge any of the Respondent¡¯s submissions on receivability. While the Tribunal appreciated that a self-represented...

The Applicant failed to comply with art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, because he did not file his application until more than one year after the 90-day statutory deadline. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. The Tribunal also held that the Applicant failed to articulate any exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The application was receivable because there was a reviewable administrative decision stemming from the SRO¡¯s negative comments and rating in the Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal because the Applicant was granted only a six-month contract instead of the one year appointment that he was granted when he initially entered on duty with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSMIL. Thus, the SRO¡¯s comments had direct legal consequences for the Applicant in that he ended up with a shorter term of appointment. Although the Respondent had made assurances to the Applicant that the 2015-2016 e- PAS would be rolled back and re-created, his...

The Tribunal concluded that the application was generally not receivable because the Applicant was specifically challenging MEU¡¯s negative responses to her various requests for management evalution. This conclusion nothwithstanding, the Tribunal reviewed each of the Applicant¡¯s claims and concluded that they were not receivable because she: failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute in relation to her claim that there was a ¡°wall of silence¡± was estopped from re-litigating her claim in relation to the delay in releasing the results of...