±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT opined that, in actuality, the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT erred in making an award of interest, which ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT are final and without appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this attempt to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-914 from Mr Oglesby. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and the party applying for revision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the ±¬ÁÏÍø Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT opined that it was within the combined powers of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not fall within the exceptional category of participants who exercised their election for a deferred retirement benefit before 1 April 1997 and were therefore entitled to restore their prior contributory service, as the Appellant exercised her election in September 2009. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was not entitled to restore her prior contributory service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint that she did not have access to the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations was unconvincing, given, inter alia, the availability of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations and Rules on the website. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

By including a paragraph about the possibility for a re-entrant to restore his or her prior contributory service under certain conditions in the A/2 form for designation of the recipient of a residual settlement, the Fund discharged its obligation to notify re-entrants such as Mr Duflos. There was no duty on the part of the Pension Fund to provide further information or clarification in that regard in the absence of any request from Mr. Duflos for information or clarification.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the Secretary-General has implied discretion to revoke benefits if a staff member does not satisfactorily furnish evidence of continued eligibility of existing entitlements, which may arise because of a change in circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it held that the legal frameworks for the two benefit systems are different and that the decisions made under the two legal regimes need not be consistent. Article 33 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøSPF Regulations does not require proof of a loss of earning capacity and the requirement of ¡°incapacitation¡± is a purely medical...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT misapplied the law of mootness and erred in law in reaching the impugned Judgment, in that it omitted to follow an important passage in Kallon relating to the cautious approach in applying the law of mootness.

The Tribunal rescinds the decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s employment and Orders: (i) the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant to a position whose duties she is able to carry out given the impairment she suffers; (ii) Orders the Respondent to make good the Applicant¡¯s lost earnings from the date of termination of her fixed-term appointment to the date of her reinstatement with interest at 8% per month for the said period; (iii) Orders that the Applicant be paid her entitlement to for the period from 28 March 2007 to 31 July 2007 during which period she was entitled to special sick leave...

The Tribunal found this decision unlawful as not grounded on any valid legal basis. It awarded three months¡¯ net base salary for moral damage.

The Tribunal found that the Organization failed to fulfil its obligations by not making timely payments to the Applicant under art. 11.2(d) of Appendix D for the two periods concerned, and that the amounts paid to the Applicant did not compensate him for the delay in payment as they should have. The Tribunal awarded the Applicant material damages in the amount of USD29,261.86 plus CHF10,544.50, and compensation for any additional taxes due by the Applicant, upon presentation of his tax declarations to the Respondent, resulting from the receipt of a lump sum of USD72,266.46 in 2015, instead of...

United Nations core competency of Communication - Due to sheer incompetence and inefficiency, the Respondent¡¯s agents did not exhibit professionalism when they failed in their duty to give proper, timely and accurate information regarding his employment and health status to the Applicant. They failed also to exhibit the core competency of communication which is required of every staff member. Requirement to file a management evaluation request - The new claims the Applicant sought to be allowed to introduce as part of this case which was instituted in 2012 are separate and distinct issues...