Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The application was receivable as it was filed in accordance with the requirements set forth in article 12.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and article 30 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP.; The payment of salaries to the Applicant should have been calculated as of the time of separation (30 November 2009) with accrued interest.; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered that the Secretary-General add a pre-judgment interest on the compensation already paid, calculated at the US Prime Rate applicable on 30 November 2009 (date of separation) to 9 December 2016 (date of payment). All other pleas were refused.

Request for execution of orders on suspension of action: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to enforce the execution of an order for suspension of action under art. 12 of its Statute and art. 32.2 of its Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal is not authorised either to circumvent these explicit provisions by using its power under art. 36.1 of its Rules of Procedure to extend its competence beyond the limits defined by the General Assembly in the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Tribunal cannot consider a hypothetical scenario concerning which there is no instant case or controversy before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the request for interpretation noting that the decision was clear and unambiguous and considered the Applicant¡¯s request to, in essence, be requesting the Tribunal to address a hypothetical future scenario.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing, noting that the Appellant was not entitled to call evidence on appeal that she should have presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly regarded itself as not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no error in its finding that the ABCC¡¯s recommendation had no connection with the attempted recovery of monies which was allegedly paid to the Appellant by the United Nations Federal Credit Union (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU) by mistake. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was quite correct in its opinion that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing to support the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that he had not exercised reasonable care by expecting the same standard of care from him as from the Operations Response Unit supervisor. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant was not on duty at the relevant time was fully supported by the facts and was not in error. Contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submission, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not suggest that the Appellant intended to cause the loss or foresaw the loss, nor did the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided to strike out the Appellant¡¯s additional submission and not to take it into consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Standing Committee¡¯s decision which was in full accord with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was neither entitled to an increase in his pension benefit nor to a retroactive payment for the period of his reemployment as there is no legal basis for retroactive payment of these...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-667. Noting that there was no provision under its Rules of Procedure allowing for the submission of additional pleadings after the submission of comments to an application for revision of judgment and that no exceptional circumstances existed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr Awe¡¯s motion to file additional comments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Awe¡¯s claim to have discovered new facts in the form of a report of the fact-finding panel which considered his complaints of abuse of authority and harassment which allegedly showed, in sum, the improper...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant was not entitled to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF Regulations as she married Mr Williams, her deceased husband, after his separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, under Article 35ter of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, the survivor¡¯s benefit had to be purchased by a retiree who marries after separation from service as an annuity within a prescribed one-year deadline after the date of the marriage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr Williams had elected not to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no obligation for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF to inform Mr Williams of the option. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it concluded that the Administration¡¯s decision was unlawful and that the sanction imposed was disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the behaviour triggering it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it ordered rescission of the sanction and compensation in lieu thereof and substituted the sanction imposed for a lesser one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had broad discretion to determine whether the assault amounted to serious misconduct and to determine the appropriate disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the non-renewal decision was communicated verbally was, by itself, of no consequence since there is no explicit requirement in law for such notification to be in writing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment dismissing the staff member¡¯s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.