Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Mukomah.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Mukomah¡¯s submission that she was the spouse of the late participant at the time of his death and is therefore entitled on that basis to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the Fund¡¯s Regulations, was not sustainable based on the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was insufficient evidence proving that the late participant and Ms. Mukomah lawfully entered a (second) union legally recognized by the competent authority of Kenya conferring similar legal effects as a marriage in relation to pension rights...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji¡¯s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji¡¯s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the staff member¡¯s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment (as affirmed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) had occurred in Mr. Ozturk¡¯s case. The Administration had complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and exercised its discretion in determining a new, revised amount to be deducted for child support from Mr. Ozturk's salary on the basis of national court orders.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ozturk appeared only to disagree with the ¡°refund calculation¡± by the Administration for prior overpayments. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that implementation by the Administration of a Tribunal¡¯s order constitutes in itself an...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dahoud.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the disability benefit paid to Mr. Dahoud in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.7(1) was different from the termination indemnity paid to certain staff members in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.9.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that despite the Medical Board's conclusion that he had an 8 per cent permanent impairment, this does not necessarily lead to a finding of permanent and total disability, as required by Area Staff Rule 109.7(7), so as to receive the supplemental benefit. Nor does this medical...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury¡¯s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione materiae.

The...

Mr. Mukeba's application for revision did not fulfil the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Statute.

Ms. Larriera filed an appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first examined whether Ms. Larriera was entitled to file a claim under Appendix D. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that ¨C unlike the Pension case - for the purpose of the Staff Regulations and Rules, the law of Brazil, Mr. M¡¯s national state, was to be the law determining his marital or domestic partnership status as at the date of his death for Appendix D purposes. That status, as determined subsequently by a Brazilian court of competent jurisdiction, was that Mr. M and Ms. Larriera were, as at the date of his death (and despite his still extant French marriage to Ms. M) in...

There was no evidence on record of a management evaluation request submitted by the Applicant. Instead, the instant application was preceded only by an ME request made in October 2021, by a colleague of the Applicant, one Mr. AA. The Tribunal found that it was apparent however, that the Applicant considered the said ME request to have been made on his behalf as one of the affected members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID national staff. The ME request was submitted more than four years after the Applicant received notification of the administrative decision being contested. The application was accordingly not...