Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In the present case, in the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation, he explicitly ¡°reserved¡± the determination of the issue of non-pecuniary damages related to the process before ABCC to the situation where his claim for compensation under Appendix D of the Staff Rules was not remanded to the ABCC. As a matter of fact, the Applicant¡¯s Appendix D claim was, however, remanded to the ABCC, and nothing in the case record indicates that the question of non-pecuniary damages was thereafter, as also requested by the Applicant, considered by the MEU. Accordingly, as the Applicant specifically...

The members of the IJC were informed that the Applicant¡¯s cases had been transferred to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from the Joint Appeals Board and that they may have had an interest to join in as parties in the case, pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure. The information communicated to the members of the IJC could not be construed as amounting to any impropriety, less still a conflict of interest, within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure. The application was rejected because it was merely a repetition of the application dismissed by Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/005.

The applicant failed to show that her case met the criteria under art. 2.2 of the Statute and art. 13 of the Rules of Procedure.

Outcome: Application was rejected.