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 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.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant¡¯s application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

The Appellant appealed judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/113 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-972) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/114 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-973). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated the two appeals. The Appellant submitted a motion to withdraw her appeals following the successful conclusion of mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled its jurisprudence that there was no reason to require a party to pursue an appeal he or she no longer deems necessary in the context of his or her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion to withdraw the Appellant¡¯s appeals and directed the Registrar to close both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT cases.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with specific consideration of the following: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...

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 held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law...

Ms Nielsen appealed judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/111 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-964) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/114 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-969). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated the two appeals. Ms Nielsen submitted motions to withdraw her appeals following successful mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motions to withdraw the appeals and directed the Registrar to close both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT cases.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding the Appellant¡¯s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

On receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable insofar as it related to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF decision to deduct child support from the Appellant¡¯s pension in accordance with Article 45 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. As to the appeal related to repayment of a sum paid directly to the Appellant¡¯s estranged spouse as child¡¯s benefit under Article 36 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this aspect was not receivable for failure to challenge in a timely manner the decision and that his claim regarding due process with respect to direct payments under Article 36 had no merit. On the merits of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was fully apprised of the options available to him in relation to his pension benefits when his first contract with the Organisation ended in 1985. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s election to transfer his actuarial value to the Social Security Fund of the USSR terminated his contractual relationship with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, who had less than five years¡¯ previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the central question before it was whether the Organisation complied with its obligation to Ms. El-Kholy to find her a suitable post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration failed in its obligation to demonstrate that all reasonable and good faith efforts had been made to consider the staff member for available and suitable posts within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP before terminating her permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s obligation to find a vacant and suitable post did not shift to the Appellant, regardless of the following: her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...