Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

If the Applicant had a duty of care in the given context, it would rather have been not to carry his personal iPad or wristwatch in his run bag, nor to attempt to retrieve them from his residence in the midst of a dangerous emergency evacuation. On the contrary, had the Applicant done so, this may well have amounted to negligence.; The Tribunal finds therefore that, in the exercise of its discretion, the Administration did not take into account, or give due regard to all the aforesaid circumstances surrounding the loss of the Applicant¡¯s property. In particular, there was no requirement...

The Tribunal concluded that, based on the inconsistencies identified in the complainant¡¯s statement during the investigation, together with the absence of his testimony during the appeal, as the only direct witness apart from the Applicant, the complainant¡¯s version of facts did not corroborate the other witnesses¡¯ statements, except for one witness, who had only an indirect knowledge of the alleged incident. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable link between the alleged physical assault and the existing injury. The Tribunal further concluded that the procedure followed was...

The Tribunal found that the Administration did not respect its obligation pursuant to staff rule 9.6(e)(i) and 9.6(f) to retain the Applicant and the Applicant¡¯s correlative right to be retained in any available suitable post at her level (G7 step 10) or at a lower level in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR NY, or at her Professional level or lower in the parent Organization. The Tribunal granted the Applicant¡¯s claim in part, rescinding the contested decision and ordering the Respondent to retain the Applicant with retroactive effect from 31 December 2016 in any current suitable available post(s), or in alternative, the...

The Tribunal found that several of the Applicant¡¯s claims were not receivable, granted his claim for assignment grant in part, and rejected his claims for security evacuation allowance; post adjustment; and compensation for financial hardship.

Granting an application for revision: As consistently held by the Appeals Tribunal, ¡°the review procedure [of revision] is of a corrective nature and thus is not an opportunity for a party to reargue his or her case¡± (see Sanwidi 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-321, para. 8. Moreover, an application for revision of a judgment is only receivable if it fulfills the strict and exceptional criteria established under art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and art. 29 of its Rules of Procedure, namely (see James 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-680, para. 13): ¡°¡­ Accordingly, an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if...

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 dismissed the application as not receivable ratione materia.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the merits.

The Tribunal (a) granted the application in part, (b) rescinded the contested decision in part and replaced the excessive and unlawful disciplinary measure of dismissal with the lesser sanction of separation from service with termination indemnity; (c) ordered the judgment to be included in the Applicant¡¯s official status file and all references relating to the disciplinary sanction of dismissal to be removed from this file and to be replaced with the new sanction, namely separation from service with termination indemnity; and (d) in the event that the Respondent would decide not to rescind...