±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that: the Sidells were negligent in not reporting their marriage before their separation from service; Mr Sidell notified ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF in October 2003 of his marriage to Mrs Sidell and ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF requested him to provide his original marriage certificate, which he did; and ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF did not follow up with Mr Sidell about the matter. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, by remaining silent, created a reasonable expectation on the part of the Sidells that Mr Sidell¡¯s pension record was corrected and that his marriage to Mr Sidell was recognised by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in the circumstances, it was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Respondent¡¯s argument that the existence of official CPI data for Argentina of itself rendered the Standing Committee impotent as far as a consideration of the Appellant¡¯s request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the matters could be raised by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF of its own volition or where a concerned beneficiary applied for the application of paragraph 26. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Respondent¡¯s arguments that the Appellant¡¯s complaint had been dealt with by historical benefits that accrued to him were unpersuasive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the impugned decision was, in effect, a failure by the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a staff member¡¯s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/209 (on liability) and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/062 (on relief). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence to support the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that, had the ±¬ÁÏÍø Staff Pension Committee (±¬ÁÏÍøSPC) not proceeded with its determination, Ms Shanks would more likely than not have been found fit to resume her duties. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the only valid conclusion available on the medical evidence was that Ms Shanks was not entitled to return to work on a part-time basis since she was not able to obtain medical clearance permitting it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s lack of jurisdiction, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was one...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the grounds for appeal were not substantiated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the alleged delay in the disposal of the case at the lower level did not have any impact on the outcome of the case and was partially tolerated by the Appellant. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasonable decision to accept the opinions of the attending doctor at the hospital and the ±¬ÁÏÍøIFIL Chief Medical Officer concerning the approximate time of Mr McKay¡¯s death being some hours prior to Mr McKay arriving at the hospital. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was correct to conclude, as ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did, that, regardless of any deficiency...

On the alleged procedural error of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was well within the competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed this ground of appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, affirming the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider that ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and noted that the letters of appointment issued to the Appellant for the period of 1 July 2009 through 30 June 2012 did not refer to either the Memorandum, that described the planned phasing-out of the PTA, or the PTA itself. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that the PTA is neither a benefit or entitlement under the Staff Regulations and Rules, which ¡°embody the conditions of service and the basic rights and duties and obligations of United Nations staff members,¡± nor an ¡°administrative issuance in application of, and consistent with, the said Regulations and Rules. ¡±...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in ordering both an extension of Mr Sannoh¡¯s appointment and payment of a termination indemnity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøMIS Information Circular No. 334 provided that staff with fixed-term appointments that are due to expire shortly will have their appointments extended for one year and, should a staff member¡¯s function no longer be required by the mission prior to the expiration of their fixed-term appointment, a termination indemnity may be payable in accordance with Staff Regulation 9. 3 and Annex III of the Staff Rules...